Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

OXFORD CORPORATION BILL

As amended, considered; Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Cured Fish Exports, Israel (Credit Facilities)

Mr. Boothby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make the necessary arrangements for an extension of the period of credits granted by the Export Credits Guarantee Department in respect of cured herring, mackerel and pilchard for the State of Israel, from six months to 12 months.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I do not think that guarantees for such an extended period of credit would be justifiable in present circumstances.

Mr. Boothby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Israel needs food with a high nutritional content and that our need for markets for this fish during periods of glut, which are inevitable, is also very great? Surely failure to match these two requirements for a further period of six months is not very wise?

Mr. Butler: There is already a period of six months for the credit, which seems to me to be appropriate for consumable commodities, and that is as far as the Export Credits Guarantee Department

can go. I realise the importance of the trade and the needs of Israel and am certainly ready to watch the situation, but I must state the position as I see it.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, in general, it is a bad policy to conduct business on extended credits?

Mr. T. Williams: If the herring industry are unable to find a market for their products, surely the Treasury must subsidise their catch?

Mr. Butler: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that very reasonable credit in respect of herrings is already provided under existing circumstances. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock) has been answered by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether there has been any approach from the Government of Israel inviting us to give longer credits?

Mr. Butler: I am not personally aware of such an approach, although I should not like to say that there had not been one, but I will certainly investigate this on returning to my office.

Mr. Boothby: I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Post-war Credits

Mr. Morley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider issuing post-war credits to widows and other people in straitened financial circumstances at an earlier age than 60 or 65.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I regret that I cannot accept this suggestion.

Mr. Morley: Is the Chancellor aware of the widespread expressions of dissatisfaction which have appeared in the national Press at his failure to give any concessions to the holders of post-war credits? Why should not these people have their own money back again when they are in sore financial straits?

Mr. Butler: This is much more difficult than the hon. Member imagines. It is a difficulty which was equally experienced by the previous Administration. The hon. Member ought not to lay at the door


of one Administration the difficulty which this system has represented and, it seems to me, is likely to represent.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the repayment of post-war credits to persons who have been certified as incapable of further employment.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I regret that I cannot accept this suggestion.

Mr. Taylor: Is the Chancellor aware that the money belongs to the people, and that, when they are certified as unemployable, that is just the time when they need their burden lightened?

Mr. Butler: One of the great difficulties in regard to the problem of post-war credits is the picking out of individual categories. Each Question time one or other category is picked out. The claims of all are generally very understandable, and that makes it very difficult to pick out a certain category.

Sir W. Smithers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only this morning I had a letter from a constituent who is in danger of losing his home for want of £50 which he has in post-war credits? If I send him the particulars, will he look into the case sympathetically?

Mr. Butler: I do not go so far as to say that I know what letters my hon. Friend has had from his constituents this morning, but I can assure him that the number of letters that I deal with from him is very considerable, although I am very glad to do it. I shall be glad to look into the case, for it is obviously a human one.

Mr. Gower: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make arrangements for the early repayment of the postwar credits of the late Mr. Miles, Sunny-bank, Eastbrook, Dinas Powis, Glamorgan, to his widow, Mrs. Alice Miles for reasons stated in correspondence from the hon. Member for Barry.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I regret that the post-war credits in this case are not yet payable and I have no power to authorise early repayment.

Mr. Gower: Does not the Minister appreciate that when a widow aged 56 is in difficult circumstances the retention

of this money by the Treasury must appear singularly unjustifiable, and cannot the Chancellor more easily bear the loss of this money than people in such circumstances?

Mr. Butler: I dare say I can bear a good deal, but the difficulty about this case, which is a most unfortunate one, is that the law stands written and I am afraid I cannot alter that law.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will form an estimate of the annual cost in interest and the anticipated annual encashment rate that would result from funding as a special issue of National Savings Certificates, the terms to be identical to those of the current issue of certificates, all outstanding post-war credits; and whether he will make a statement upon the practicability of such a scheme in present circumstances.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The annual cost in interest would depend upon the rate of encashment, which cannot be estimated with any accuracy. But I think there would certainly be heavy encashments of the Certificates and I do not, therefore, regard this scheme as a practical proposition.

Mr. Nabarro: In order to demonstrate to the nation the magnitude of this financial problem—and I am completely in sympathy with his view—would my right hon. Friend publish more details of the great difficulties of schemes of this kind which are being widely canvassed at the present time?

Mr. Butler: Perhaps my hon. Friend's Question and my reply may be used by the wide publicity machines available in this country.

Taxation Revenue, Wales

Mr. Gower: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total revenue derived by direct and indirect taxation from the Principality of Wales, including Monmouthshire, during 1950, 1951 and 1952, respectively.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Wales we are anxious to know much more about the economic position of the Principality? Is there


really any valid reason why the Scots should have such information and yet it should be refused to us in Wales?

Mr. Butler: There are all sorts of difficulties at present. One is that the tax districts cover both sides of the Border. Another is that a company operating in Wales may be assessed elsewhere because its registered office is in London. To give exact statistics in answer to my hon. Friend would, in present circumstances, within the field of Inland Revenue alone, be very difficult, and I could give instances of similar difficulties in the field of Customs and Excise.

Mr. G. Roberts: Has the Chancellor given any consideration to the suggestion that a Welsh inquiry might be set on foot comparable to the Catto inquiry in Scotland?

Mr. Bntler: I should rather hesitate, because I have personally always taken a great interest in Wales and I think that its economic life and its interests are very much bound up with those of the United Kingdom. I will certainly examine anything which the hon. Member puts forward, but my inclination is the other way.

Entertainments Duty (Cinemas)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association since his Budget statement; and whether he is now in a position to announce a reduction in Entertainments Duty on cinematograph performances.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The Cinematograph Exhibitors Association recently renewed the representations for a reduction in Entertainments Duty which they made before the Budget. The hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate any discussion which may take place during the passage of the Finance Bill.

Mr. Swingler: Does the answer mean that the Chancellor is keeping his mind open on the subject? In view of the falling revenue from the tax and the fact that many small exhibitors are going out of business, may we be optimistic about the decision that he may reach after hearing the discussion on the Committee stage?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman would be most mistaken to be optimistic, but I would ask him to listen to any observations which I may let fall during the passage of the Finance Bill.

Sir H. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is impossible to reduce taxation without reducing expenditure and that last night the Opposition voted against any reduction in expenditure in a most wasteful public service?

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now consider the introduction of a rebate of Entertainments Duty on cinematograph performances of British films, as a means of encouraging the production and exhibition of British films.

Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir. My hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade explained in reply to a previous Question on this subject on 16th December, 1952, that if the industry were to make representations to this effect they would be considered; but no such representations have been received.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of 1s. seats sold in cinemas during the last financial year.

Mr. R. A. Butler: About 280 million.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that the figures just given represent a loss to the Chancellor of something like £2½ million if the 2d. tax on 1s. seats were abolished, does not his conjectural and consequential loss given last Tuesday of £15 million to £20 million seem rather exaggerated?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The apparent discrepancy is accounted for by the fact that in giving the figure of between £15 million and £20 million we took account of the adjustment of higher prices in consequence of the exemption which would probably follow.

Mr. Rankin: On what grounds can the Chancellor make such an assumption?

Mr. Butler: Intelligent anticipation of what would be likely to happen.

Savings (Withdrawals and Reinvestment)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the surplus of national savings over encashments in the first six


weeks of the current savings year, also the deficit or shortfall of new deposits against withdrawals from the Post Office Savings Bank and Trustee Savings Bank during the same period; and what deductions he has made from these trends.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Disregarding accrued interest and Defence Bonds paid off on maturity, receipts reported by the National Savings Committee in the six weeks ended 16th May, 1953, exceeded repayments by £100,000. For savings banks only there was a deficit, on a comparable basis, of £7,500,000. I do not consider that any valid conclusions can be drawn from savings figures covering a period as short as six weeks, although it is encouraging to note that over that period this year there was an improvement of nearly £10 million compared with the corresponding period last year.

Mr. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend agree that probably what is happening at this time is that there is a considerable encashment by depositors in the Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks who are withdrawing their money because their interest is taxed and are investing it in National Savings Certificates where no interest is taxed at all? In view of the undesirability of a trend of this kind, can my right hon. Friend say if he has any steps in mind to deal with it?

Mr. Butler: I could not give an answer to so important a question on the spur of the moment, but I will examine what my hon. Friend says.

Football and Boxing (Duty)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much Entertainments Duty he budgets upon collecting in the tax year 1953–54 from football and boxing; and by how much per centum the present level of football pools tax would have to be raised to compensate for abolishing Entertainments Duty on football and boxing in the same tax year.

Mr. R. A. Butler: About £1·6 million and 2½ per cent., respectively.

Mr. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he has received any approaches from those abolitionists of Entertainments Duty on football as to whether they would be prepared to shoulder a commensurate increase in the football pools tax?

Mr. Butler: Most representations to me are for relief and very few want to take on an extra burden.

Mr. Gaitskell: How much of the £1 6 million is boxing and how much is football?

Mr. Butler: I could not say without notice, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would put that down.

Mr. Nally: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite the invariably pompous nature of the supplementary questions of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), this is one occasion when he is on a good point? Are we to understand from the reply that the right hon. Gentleman has given that an increase in the football pools tax of 2½ per cent. would, in point of fact, make it possible for him to relieve the sports named in the Question from tax entirely, and if that is so will he bear in mind that it is far better to tax football pools than it is to tax the people who go to see a game?

Mr. Butler: We will have an opportunity later today of discussing the Entertainments Duty and perhaps we shall go into some of these details then.

Gas Water-heaters (Tax)

Captain Ryder: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered the letter sent to him by the hon. and gallant Member for Merton and Morden regarding the position now facing those firms making gas water-heaters; and whether he will take action to assist the recovery of this industry.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Yes, Sir. I note that my hon. Friend's constituent attributes his trading difficulties to the incidence of Purchase Tax. I hope that the reduction by one-quarter in the tax on his product which I announced in the Budget will therefore be of assistance to him.

Captain Ryder: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is the view of this industry that the reduction will be quite inadequate, and that gas water-heaters could, in fact, play an important part in fuel efficiency? Would my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that if we are not careful this will be a diminishing return?

Mr. Butler: I realise all these factors, but there are a great many difficulties in reducing Purchase Tax at one time more than I did in my Budget.

Captain Ryder: Would my right hon. Friend consider whether there could not be some easement in the matter of hire purchase?

Mr. Butler: That is an aspect of this matter which is often brought before me. But it is another question.

Mechanical Lighters (Regulations)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Regulations are now in force under Section 221 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952.

Mr. R. A. Butler: No Regulations have so far been made under that Section, but the Mechanical Lighters Regulations, 1928, and the Mechanical Lighters (Amendment) Regulations, 1934, have effect as if so made.

Mr. Fletcher: Would the Chancellor be good enough to make available a copy of the Regulations for the benefit of hon. Members when we are considering Clause 2 of the Finance Bill.

Mr. Butler: If we can do so in the time it will be put in the Library, but we shall have to be pretty quick.

Overseas Investments, United States (Sale)

Mr. W. G. Bennett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total value, in dollars and sterling, of all dollar stocks and securities compulsorily acquired in this country and sold in America during the period September, 1939-June, 1945.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Command Paper published in December, 1945, and entitled "Statistical Material presented during the Washington Negotiations" (Cmd. 6707). Appendix III of that paper gave figures for the proceeds of sale or repatriation of overseas investments during the war and included £203 million in respect of investments in the United States.

Mr. Bennett: Would the Chancellor agree that the sterling value of that stock today, bearing in mind the depreciation of sterling currency, would be at least five times the figure given?

Mr. Butler: I should not like to make an obiter dictum on this matter at this time.

Coronation Crown Pieces

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements have been made to enable members of the public who have no banking accounts to obtain Coronation crown pieces.

Mr. R. A. Butler: By arrangement with the Royal Mint all the larger banks have agreed to accept orders for crown pieces from any member of the public whether customer or not.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: If that is so, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer let the people of London know to which banks they can go of which they are not customers, and where those banks will gladly let them have 5s. pieces?

Mr. Butler: My answer is that it is from all the larger banks, but I will certainly inform the hon. and gallant Gentleman what I mean by that expression.

Sir H. Williams: May I ask my right hon. Friend what he meant when he said "by arrangement with the Mint"? As he is Master of the Mint, does he make arrangements with himself?

Mr. Butler: The Mint is accustomed to accept my slightest word as law.

Mr. Holman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what facilities are available for obtaining Coronation crowns otherwise than through the banks.

Mr. R. A. Butler: About 100,000 crown pieces have been ordered by and will be supplied to recognised coin dealers by the Royal Mint.

Mr. Holman: How will it be possible for the majority of Her Majesty's subjects to become possessed of this interesting Coronation souvenir when they are not customers of the banks, and the Bank of England have announced to one of my constituents that they will only have an issue for their own staff and their own customers?

Mr. Butler: The recognised channels for the dispersal of these coins are the banks, and I think we had better leave it like that unless the hon. Gentleman can make me any better suggestion.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Would it be possible for an arrangement to be made to supply these coins through the Post Office, or would it put too much work on an already overburdened Department?

Mr. Butler: Hitherto that proposal has been turned down for the very reason suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, but as there is obviously an interest in this matter, I will look into it in the light of what has been said.

Anglo-German Economic Talks

Mr. Gaitskell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement on the recent economic talks with members of the German Government.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I cannot well add anything to the agreed statement which was issued at the end of these talks. I am circulating a copy with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can we take it that, arising out of these talks, the German Government are likely to lift further restrictions on imports into Germany in order to reduce their surplus with the European Payments Union?

Mr. Butler: I think we must leave any such action to the initiative of the West German Government, but the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that some very useful conversations took place on the subject of artificial incentive schemes for exports, and those are referred to in the communiqué.

Following is the statement:

ANGLO-GERMAN DISCUSSIONS

The Vice-Chancellor of the German Federal Republic, Dr. Bluecher, and the Minister of Economics, Dr. Erhard, visited London on 12th and 13th May for discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury.

They discussed the questions of Freer trade and currencies raised in the statements made by U.K. Ministers in the O.E.E.C. Council in Paris on 23rd March. There was general agreement as to the necessary conditions for progress towards the restoration of convertibility and the removal of restrictions on trade; notably, sound internal financial policies, the pursuit of good creditor policies by creditor countries and the availability of adequate financial support. There was full and frank examination of all these questions, and it was agreed that further discussions should be held in the future.

Other economic matters of interest to both countries were also discussed. In particular, it was agreed that the stimulation of exports by artificial incentive schemes distorted the pattern of trade and impaired free competition; the two Governments would consult further together and co-operate with other governments with a view to securing the progressive elimination of such schemes on an international basis.

Customs Facilities, Greatham Airport

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why so much delay occurred in giving a decision about the provision of Customs facilities at Greatham Aerodrome; and why such facilities were refused for the present year, in view of the fact that they were conceded in previous years

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): No delay occurred, and the application was dealt with in 11 days. It is now again under consideration, at the initiative, among others, of the hon. Member. Facilities were refused in view both of the small volume of overseas traffic using this airport, particularly during the two trial periods referred to in the question, and the fact that aircraft can obtain Customs clearance at another airport within 35 miles.

Mr. Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this representation was first made to the Minister of Civil Aviation who, in turn, got into touch with his Department more than five weeks ago, and that the final refusal was only given two days before the first aircraft was due to fly? Is he further aware that in the season 1952 nearly 1,400 people used this service between Greatham and the Channel Islands? Is he further aware that by this refusal he is depriving 700,000 people of aircraft facilities?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On the question of delay the facts are that the application was made to the Customs and Excise on 6th March and the reply was sent on 17th, that is to say 11 days after. On the merits of the matter, as it is being reconsidered I would prefer not even to appear to prejudice the final decision by entering into an argument with the hon. Gentleman on the points he has just made.

Mr. Slater: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that great disappointment is being felt on Tees-side by the action that has been taken? In an area which is so industrialised, does he not think that every consideration ought to be given whereby the facilities which can operate and which have been operated, should be allowed to continue to cater for the many people in that area?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Every consideration will be given to this and, I hope, to every application. The House must appreciate that, unless we are to have to ask for increased staffs, there must be a limit in the number of civil airports at which Customs facilities can be given.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Cement Dust Nuisance, North-West Kent

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action has been taken to ensure that during the summer months people living in North-West Kent will not be affected by the cement dust nuisance.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 14th April.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman claiming that, once the electrical precipitators are repaired, they do not break down again? Further, what about the cement kilns? Is every one in Kent that is not suitable for electrical precipitators to go out of action or how can he give such a confident reply?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not know about the confidence of my reply. All I said was that I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 14th April. He must judge of its character when he refers to it. The point that perhaps he and the House will remember is that there are five of these dust precipitators which have gone out of action. Three have now been repaired and urgent work is going on on the other two.

Mr. Dodds: But in the answer to the Question referred to, the right hon. Gentleman said that when all were repaired everything would be quite all right in future. Is not that optimistic?

Mr. Macmillan: If the hon. Gentleman will read my reply he will see that I did not say that.

Derating

Mr. Wade: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government to make a statement on the increasing burden of rates and the inequitable distribution of this burden; and how soon he expects to be in a position to take steps to amend the Derating Act, 1929.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I have no statement to make on these large issues. Nor are they, in my view, conveniently dealt with by question and answer.

Mr. Wade: Does the Minister agree that the serious and increasing burden of rates falls particularly heavily on householders and shopkeepers, and would he agree that the conditions which applied to 1929 when the Derating Act was produced are very different from those that exist today?

Mr. Macmillan: Oh, yes. I did not mean that they were not important questions but, I repeat, that I do not think they are easily dealt with by question and answer. There will be a good opportunity on Thursday for a full day's debate on them.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say what total would be shifted from one set of shoulders to another if the Derating Act, 1929, were abolished?

Mr. Macmillan: There would be all kinds of corresponding adjustments as between the local taxation and the central grants.

Mr. Hall: I realise that, but could the right hon. Gentleman give us an estimate of how much would be involved?

Mr. Macmillan: Not offhand.

Docks (Sanitary Facilities)

Mr. Keenan: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that sanitary facilities for dockworkers are out of date, insufficient and afford no privacy; and whether he will introduce legislation to enable local authorities to exercise supervision of such facilities in dock estates.

Mr. H. Macmillan: No, Sir; but if the hon. Member would let me know of any cases he has in mind, I will have inquiries made.

Mr. Keenan: Is the Minister aware that on Merseyside, in which I am interested, the lavatories are old and very primitive, that there is no privacy whatever, and that there are no ladies' lavatories of any kind on the Liverpool or Merseyside dock estates? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the local authorities and the port sanitary authority have no power to make those responsible for dock estates carry out these very necessary sanitary provisions because the Factories Act, 1937, does not apply?

Mr. Macmillan: Perhaps the hon. Member would be good enough to come and see me and discuss this matter. If, as he says, neither I nor any other Minister has statutory authority, it may well be a question which we ought to consider with a view to ameliorating it.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Minister aware that this matter has received consideration by the health committee in Liverpool for the past 20 years and that the difficulty seems to be that nobody can say exactly whose responsibility it is to deal with the matter? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the present legislation and see whether he can assess the position and give the local authorities some guidance as to their responsibility or the responsibility of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board?

Mr. Macmillan: I will certainly look at the matter, but it will very likely prove to be a case neither for my Department nor for the local authorities, but rather for some alteration of the Factories Act or other similar legislation.

Mr. Isaacs: Will the Minister look at the experience in the London Docks of a couple of years ago, when a similar problem arose and steps were taken considerably to improve the situation?

Mr. Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that I ought to consult with my right hon. Friends. It is really a matter of general discussion if action were decided to be necessary.

Air Pollution

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he can yet announce the names and qualifications of the appointments to the Committee to undertake a comprehensive review of the causes and effects of air pollution, as well as to consider what further preventive measures are practicable.

Mr. H. Macmillan: No, Sir; but I will do so as soon as I can.

Mr. Dodds: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of how long that might be, in view of the fact that it took five months to decide to set up the Committee?

Mr. Macmillan: It takes quite a time to get the people that one needs. I have just succeeded in getting a rather similar committee formed. One needs to get a very good person as chairman and very good scientific advisers as members, and all these people are very busy and have many claims upon them. It is better to wait a little to try to get the right people.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that air pollution, which has been aggravated over 50 years, is principally caused through the inefficient burning of bituminous coal? Will he, therefore, bear in mind the overwhelming importance of seeing that fuel and power interests are fully represented on this Committee?

Mr. Lewis: In view of the fact that the Minister has stated that he needs active and qualified people for this Committee, will he consider the qualifications of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds)?

Mr. Dodds: I decline.

Mr. Macmillan: I will bear that in mind.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the fact that air pollution costs the country something like £50 million a year, will the Minister include in the terms of reference power for the Committee to make recommendations for expenditure for reducing this appalling cost?

Mr. Macmillan: I will consider that.

Lynmouth (Reconstruction)

Brigadier Peto: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that the rebuilding


of Lynmouth is being held up by the failure of his Department to approve the plan which has been submitted some months ago by the local planning authority; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Emergency works of clearance and restoration costing £100,000 have already been carried out. Proposals for the permanent reconstruction and protective works in the Lynmouth area were received from the Devon County Council on 2nd March last. They entail a major scheme embracing the river works, roads, bridges, coast protection, sewerage and the demolition of buildings, at a total estimated cost, including works outside Lynmouth itself, of more than £700,000.
The matter is, of course, of great consequence to the future of Lynmouth and the proposals call for careful study. They have been examined by the Departments concerned as a matter of special urgency and the Government hope to be in a position to give the necessary decisions very shortly. In the meantime, so that urgent work may proceed quickly, I have already agreed that tenders may be obtained for the reconstruction of the harbour arm and the Rhenish Tower, and detailed proposals for a section of the river works have also been prepared and submitted by the Devon River Board. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that the action taken has been expeditious and effective.

Brigadier Peto: Several points arise, but I want to put only one now. When the Minister finally approves the plan, will he at the same time inform the coast protection authority and the planning authority—the county council— to what extent the grant will be made to them so that they are capable of assessing how much, if anything, has to be borne by the rates?

Mr. Macmillan: I thought the most important thing was to study what ought to be done, to get it done as rapidly as possible, and to start on some part of it even before we had formal approval of the whole—that we have done. All these matters will come along in due course, and I am glad to have my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, which I shall try to follow.

Colliery Refuse Tip, Washington

Mr. Hartley: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that the nuisance arising from the colliery refuse tip at Oxclose, Washington, County Durham, is continuing; and whether he will ask for a report as to the effect of the fumes on the health of the people residing in the district and take effective steps to deal with the nuisance.

Mr. H. Macmillan: My inspector made suggestions for dealing with this nuisance. I will make further inquiries as to their result and write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Bartley: Is the Minister aware that the method of dealing with this refuse tip, which, presumably, the inspector had in mind a few weeks ago, is still ineffective? Even though parts of the tip are covered by sand and loam, as was then suggested, it very often takes fire again and gives rise to the awful fumes about which the public are complaining. Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, take some expert technical advice as to the best method of dealing with this nuisance, especially in view of the effect it may have upon the health of the public, and thus assure the public by evidence that effective improvement is being made in this matter?

Mr. Macmillan: We have sent the most expert man of whom we know, and I will certainly take note of what the hon. Member has said. At present, the authorities concerned are trying to treat the fire with sand and loam—there is no water conveniently near—and it is hoped that they will be successful. If we can get some further expert advice, I will certainly take note of what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. T. Brown: Does the Minister not now hold the opinion that the time has come when his Department should be in closer collaboration with the National Coal Board and should prevent these pit heaps from going up, otherwise there will be trouble in other parts of the country? It is now understood by the men who know about it that wherever pit heaps are put up, there will be fires. Therefore, we ought to prevent the heaps going up, and there would be no fires.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Will the Minister be good enough to consult the Minister of Fuel and Power to see what can be done to prevent coal being mixed with the stone day after day which merely helps to feed these fires? If this were done, it would go a long way to alleviate the problem.

Mr. Macmillan: I am grateful for the suggestions of hon. Members, who are, obviously, very well qualified, and I will try to consider them.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Since the Minister is going to be good enough to study this problem, will he also consider with the Coal Board whether by the use of bulldozers pit heaps could not sometimes be transformed into useful housing sites?

Sir H. Williams: On a point of order. Are we entitled to ask questions about the day-to-day administration of the National Coal Board?

Mr. Speaker: I do not see anything in that point of order. The question asked the Minister whether he would consult with the Coal Board, and I see nothing wrong in that.

Bombed Cities (Reconstruction)

Mr. Foot: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in view of the Government's recently announced policy about the allocation of steel supplies, he proposes to review the licences for reconstruction permitted for bombed cities in the year 1953.

Mr. H. Macmillan: As I indicated in the debate on the blitzed cities last March, I am constantly watching the progress of reconstruction. I hope that the year 1953 will show as great if not a greater rate of progress over 1952 as that year did over 1951.

Mr. Foot: Since the Minister was good enough, following pressure put upon him in the debate we had a few weeks ago, to make a review of the position as it applied to the city of Plymouth, could he give some indication to help developers of when he is likely to be changing his mind again?

Mr. Macmillan: It is not a question of changing our mind. We did in 1952 more than £1¼ million worth of work more than my predecesor in 1951. We feel fairly satisfied, if that or a greater rate of in-

crease is maintained in 1953. We shall continue to fit into the programme new projects according to the state of labour and materials which seems to justify us doing so in each particular locality. The Minister of Works—who helps me in this —and I have been not altogether unsuccessful to judge by the fall in building labour unemployment to almost negligible figures in Plymouth in the last few months.

Mr. Foot: Since the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to answer several questions I did not put on the Order Paper, would he say when he will be able to review the allocations for building in the Plymouth City Centre to bring it up to the total of those engaged in rebuilding the city to the level at which it stood when the Labour Government were in power?

Mr. Macmillan: I suspect the hon. Member of trying to use this period of question and answer for some political advantage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I think hon. Members opposite will be as satisfied in what I have done over the blitzed cities as they are over what we have done in the housing campaign.

Mrs. Braddock: Who is responsible for political propaganda now?

Sewerage Scheme, Goring-on-Thames

Mr. Hay: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is now prepared to state the starting date for Stage I of the sewerage scheme for Goring-on-Thames, Oxfordshire.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I am ready to allow this part of the scheme to start in the autumn.

Mr. Hay: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this scheme has had a long history of delay owing to the nature of the soil? Will he do his best to expedite it and bring it a little further forward?

Mr. Macmillan: I have looked at the matter very carefully. It is a very large scheme and is to be undertaken in three separate stages. I am looking at the preparatory work and the labour and materials available. I think it would be wise to make a start in the autumn of this year.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Wartime Camps and Hutments

Commander Maitland: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what special guidance he has given to local authorities to assist them in dealing with the problems which must inevitably occur while people are living in wartime camps and hutments.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Since local authorities are experienced in housing management I have not thought it necessary to offer any special guidance. I recognise the problems involved, and I hope that the Working Party on Requisitioned Properties in Use for Housing which I set up will find ways of progressively shutting them down.

Commander Maitland: But does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is a considerable and growing social problem here because the most unfortunate people and also some rather unpleasant people are concentrated together? Has not the right hon. Gentleman said recently that he is proposing to deal with the slums, and will he not start with these settlements?

Mr. Macmillan: It is a serious problem, but I am happy to say that I do not think that it is growing to the extent that the numbers are growing. On the contrary, these people are being withdrawn gradually from the temporary accommodation.

Commander Maitland: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many wartime camps or hutments are still being used by local authorities in England and Wales to house families; and how many people are still living in these camps.

Mr. H. Macmillan: My hon. and gallant Friend will find the latest available figures on page 9 of the Quarterly Housing Return for March, 1953. The number of individual persons concerned is not known.

Resale Price Control

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he will take to assist the owners of houses privately built on licence since

the war in cases where those owners have to sell the houses when transferred to other places of employment.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Gower: While I appreciate that the Minister's investigations may continue, may I ask whether he thinks it possible to relate the selling price of an existing house to the cost of erecting a house of similar size and similar floor space elsewhere?

Mr. Macmillan: Oh, yes; that is very relevant.

Sites, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is now in a position to announce a decision about proposed housing sites in Newcastle-under-Lyme.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Not yet. I have written to the hon. Member explaining how matters now stand.

Mr. Swingler: While thanking the Minister for his letter and for the action taken in calling another conference, may I ask whether he is aware that several conferences about this question have now been held and the officers of his Department and of the Ministry of Agriculture must know the views of the local authorities by heart? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking, hi view of the protracted negotiations about this matter, to make a decision by the end of this month?

Mr. Macmillan: Oh, no. I will do my best to expedite it, but, as I have said before, while nobody is more anxious than I am to see that sufficient sites are available for the increased housing, I am also only too much aware of the needs of agriculture and of other claims; and I try in each case to get a settlement which is regarded as reasonable by all concerned.

Cost of Repairs

Mr. L. Thomas: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he will publish the report of the Departmental committee he set up in August, 1952, to inquire into the effects of rent restriction and the increased cost of repairs and the deterioration of existing premises.

Mr. H. Macmillan: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. No special committee was set up, but of course I have been engaged in much study of these and allied problems. I cannot yet make any statement of policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

"The Burghers of Calais" Sculpture

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Works why Rodin's group, "The Burghers of Calais," is so placed and mounted that it is difficult for the public to view it properly.

The Minister of Works (Mr. David Eccles): Rodin himself approved the site for this group and the height of the pedestal. However, I agree with the hon. Member's view and when funds are available, I will consider moving the group to a site nearby where it could be seen to better advantage.

Dr. Stross: Whilst thanking the Minister for his answer, which I think is quite satisfactory—and stating that I feared he might have known the first part, as indeed he does—may I ask if he will note that in Calais the pedestal is only about a foot high and the group is completely visible, whereas here it is up in the sky and no one ever sees the group?

Mr. Eccles: I prefer the treatment in Calais to that in the Victoria Tower Gardens.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: May we have an assurance that this statuary will be replaced as it is in the square in Calais, almost at pavement level?

Mr. Eccles: That will be considered and the Fine Art Commission will have to be consulted, but I hope that will be the result.

Battersea Pleasure Gardens

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Works the total attendance so far this season at the Battersea Pleasure Gardens; and what are the new major attractions.

Mr. Eccles: The Pleasure Gardens were fully opened on 16th May when the attendance was 26,365. Before that date, when the Funfair only was open during Easter week and subsequent

Friday evenings and Saturdays, the total attendance was 105,416. Special new attractions include the "Lumascope"; an inflatable rubber figure called "Gargantua the Giant"; a "Space Ship," a small circus and a number of Coronation features including a floral crown standing some 23 feet high on a cushion of flowers.

Brick and Cement Supplies, South Wales

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Works whether he is aware of the continued shortage of bricks and cement in South Wales and, in particular, that one firm in Newport making concrete blocks for housing schemes in the county borough of Newport, Cwmbran new town and Cardiff city is only working to 50 per cent. capacity owing to the shortage of cement and which is still holding up building activities in South Wales; and what action is being taken to augment the supply.

Mr. Eccles: In South Wales, as elsewhere, the high level of building activity has caused some lengthening of delivery periods for bricks and cement. Brick output is increasing, and the local production of cement is being augmented by shipments of continental cement direct to South Wales. I am not aware of any firm of concrete block makers in Newport reduced to working at only 50 per cent. of capacity by shortage of cement.

Mr. Freeman: If I give the right hon. Gentleman a letter from the firm concerned, will he look into the matter as these concrete blocks are being used in place of bricks, of which we are so short and are causing considerable delay in substantial housing projects?

Mr. Eccles: I am looking into the matter and I hope the hon. Member will advise the firm to use Belgian cement, which is of the same specification.

Coronation Decorations

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Works how long he proposes to leave London's Coronation decorations set up by his Department.

Mr. Eccles: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) on 17th March.

Dr. King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that lots of folk in the provinces will be bringing parties to London after the Coronation in order to see the decorations? Will he not only keep his own part of the decorations up as long as possible, but use his influence with the rest of London to do the same?

Mr. Eccles: One has to balance the desire of visitors who are coming to see the decorations with the fact that some of the decorations obscure Westminster Abbey and other historical buildings. I think that by 22nd June, when we intend to start taking them down, the decorations will be slightly the worse for the weather.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman enter into consultation with the police authorities so that the public may know (a) how long these decorations are to be in position and (b) to what extent access is to be provided in those thoroughfares to coach parties, many of which will be touring the streets during the period of the decorations?

Mr. Eccles: Yes, Sir. They will be displayed until 22nd June. The question of coach parties is under consultation with the police.

ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION, STOKE-ON-TRENT (FLUORINE)

Dr. Stross: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether he has noted that the experimental evidence now available, showing prolonged intake of fluorine compounds, causes chronic kidney disease in animals, before bone changes occur; and whether he will institute an investigation of the neighbourhood hazards of industrial fluorosis in Stoke-on-Trent, so as to estimate the danger to human beings.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson): I am aware that in one investigation large doses of sodium fluoride administered in the diet to rats for more than 10 months produced changes in the kidneys. This is a very different matter from exposure to minute proportions of fluorine in the

atmosphere and I know of no new evidence which would suggest that further research on human fluorosis should be undertaken in Stoke-on-Trent. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health indicated in her speech on the Adjournment on Thursday last, the problem of pollution of the atmosphere with fluorides will no doubt be within the terms of reference of the committee on air pollution which the Government propose to set up.

Dr. Stross: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary see that the evidence existing is that fluorine compounds are being used more and more in industry generally and that there is an increasing hazard to human beings? Would he at least say whether the experiment to which I have referred and which he has quoted is checked to see if it be accurate?

Mr. Molson: There is at present no evidence that the gravity of fluoride poisoning in the case of human beings is sufficient to warrant a detailed investigation by the Medical Research Council. As the hon. Member is aware, in the case of animals the danger of fluoride poisoning is very much greater than in the case of human beings.

PARLIAMENTARY STATEMENTS (DESPATCH TO WASHINGTON)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he will instruct our Ambassador in Washington to arrange for members of the United States Senate to be supplied with copies of HANSARD for the recent debate on foreign affairs, in order that they may be fully informed of references to the United States of America made during the debate.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): Arrangements will be made in future to ensure that the verbatim text of important speeches on foreign affairs by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition are cabled immediately after they are delivered to the British Embassy in Washington.

Mr. Hughes: Would it not be just as well if this arrangement was made retrospective so that Senator McCarthy


and other Senators might have some clearer idea of what was said in this House?

The Prime Minister: Actually, the verbatim text arrived the next day, but I agree that it is a great pity to do what was done by the Department or the branch concerned, namely, to send a 75 per cent. extract of the speech, because all of us who have experience of these matters in all parts of the House will feel that one could hardly have it worse both ways than to have 75 per cent. of one's speech reported.

Mr. H. Morrison: Is the Prime Minister aware that the action he has taken will meet with the approval of all parts of the House? I think it is very wise because otherwise we are liable to be misunderstood on the basis of summaries. I should like to express what I hope is the feeling of the whole House—our appreciation of what the Prime Minister has done.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Austin Motor Works (Reinstatement of Strikers)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now make a statement on the Report of the Committee of Inquiry on the dispute at the Austin Motor Works.

The Minister of Labour (Sir Walter Monckton): The Report of the court of inquiry was issued last week, and I have no doubt that the parties to the dispute are giving careful consideration to its statements and findings. I trust that in the result better relations will be established between the union and the company, and I have invited their attention in particular to the hope expressed by the court that they will make every endeavour to achieve good industrial relations. I am sure this is a hope we all share.

Mr. Chapman: Could the Minister say whether he can think of, and whether he can practice, any particular steps to improve industrial relations, which are very bad at this particular factory? Secondly, since it is the main concern that

these men should be re-absorbed without any further bitterness, will the Minister investigate the allegation that only three or four out of 30 men on the strike committee have been offered a return to work? Will he find out whether this is some new attempt to provoke further bitterness in this very difficult situation?

Sir W. Monckton: I will try to think of steps, and to take all the steps I think appropriate, to improve relations there and everywhere else. I think it is satisfactory to see that we have submitted for re-employment the names of those who have been strikers and have been discharged. The position at present is that there were 1,583 discharged strikers, of whom about 1,480 registered at Exchanges, and that so far 1,200 have been re-engaged by Austin's, and a further 40 have been found employment with other firms.

Mr. Chapman: What about the strike committee?

Sir W. Monckton: I cannot answer that question without notice.

Mr. Robson Brown: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that this attitude of magnanimity of the firm will be greatly appreciated, and will do much to reduce any aftermath of bitterness among the men?

Sir W. Monckton: I am anxious that as many of these men as possible should be re-employed. A great many have been re-employed, and I think the sooner we forget the bitterness and try to get better relations, the better for all of us.

Mr. Edelman: Will the Minister bear in mind that this costly court was set up too late and reported too late to have any direct bearing on the settlement of the strike? Will the Minister now, in the interests of the industrial peace which we all hope to see, invite the company, which the court says has a share of responsibility for the development of the strike, to reengage those former strikers who are now unemployed?

Sir W. Monckton: As to the first matter about the court of inquiry, as I have previously explained, as soon as I was asked to appoint it I obtained the views of both parties, I did appoint it within a week and it sat as soon as it reasonably could. As for asking the firm to re-engage the


men, I wrote to them—I sent the first part to the union as well—saying:
I am to draw your attention in particular to the final sentence of paragraph 85 in the Report,"—
this is written by one of my staff, not by me—
and to say that the Minister shares the hope expressed by the Court that both parties will now make every endeavour to establish good industrial relations.
In writing to the company, it was added:
The Minister trusts that, with this object in mind, the Company will proceed as rapidly as possible with plans for the re-employment of men who have been discharged.

Mr. Robens: Will the Minister agree that in the present state of affairs, which shows great bitterness in the personal relations of this firm, it would be a useful thing if he would convene a meeting of both sides to get effective personal relations established?

Sir W. Monckton: I always pay attention to suggestions made to me by the right hon. Gentleman on a matter of this sort; I will certainly look into that.

Gateshead

Mr. J. T. Hall: asked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken to find employment for the exceptional number of men and women who have been out of work for a long period in the towns of Gateshead; and especially the men and women who have been unemployed for more than six months, and who are more than 50 years of age.

Sir W. Monckton: A considerable amount of new employment is expected to accrue from firms already established in the Gateshead area, and our efforts to create further new employment are continuing. Men and women in Gateshead who have been long unemployed and who may be in need of physical restoration and vocational guidance to assist them to obtain employment can be admitted to the nearby industrial rehabilitation unit at Felling. The special difficulty which older men and women have in finding employment applies, unfortunately, throughout the country, and I am looking to the National Advisory Committee on the Employment of Older Men and Women, over which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary presides, to help to widen the opportunities of employment for older people.

Mr. Hall: Does the Minister not think that he must make special efforts to try to get these people working, otherwise they will be out of work for the rest of their lives?

Sir W. Monckton: I am fully aware of the difficulties: I have been to the area to see for myself. I have been in consultation with the President of the Board of Trade, and we have considerable hope that firms which have gone there have not reached the peak of their labour requirements, and that the situation will improve.

Industrial Insurance (Interchangeability)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken or contemplated to make industrial insurance schemes interchangeable so that men can transfer from one industry to another without any loss of benefits.

Sir W. Monckton: My attention has been drawn to the possible effect on the mobility of labour of loss of pension benefits on transfer from one firm to another and I have the matter under consideration. I understand that taxation aspects are being examined by the Millard Tucker Committee on the Taxation Treatment of Provisions for Retirement, who are expected to report shortly.

Mr. Awbery: Would the Minister press on with the idea of making these industrial insurances interchangeable because there are young men in some industries who would be more serviceable in others, but who cannot transfer because of the insurance arrangements? Would the Minister press on with this idea?

Sir W. Monckton: This is a matter which is being considered by the Committee of which I spoke. It is a matter which I have very much in mind; but the hon. Member will realise that there are difficulties on both sides, and it is necessary for the trade unions to suggest that, in some cases at all events, there may be a blockage of promotion, which they do not want to see. We have to take all this into account, but I will get on with it.

Maesteg

Mr. Padley: asked the Minister of Labour how many persons, men and women, were unemployed in the urban


district of Maesteg in March, 1933, and March, 1953, respectively.

Sir W. Monckton: Three thousand, three hundred and ninety-seven men and 95 women, or 3,492 in all, at 20th March, 1933, and 95 men and 48 women, a total of 143 at 16th March, 1953. The figures relate to persons registered at the Maesteg employment exchange.

Elderly Workers (Transport Commission)

Mr. Deedes: asked the Minister of Labour what plans the British Transport Commission has submitted to him, under Section 95 of the Transport Act, 1947, for retaining employees beyond the retiring age of 65 in suitable cases.

Sir W. Monckton: Section 95 of the Transport Act, 1947, does not impose any obligation on the British Transport Commission to submit to me any plans which the Commission may have for retaining employees beyond the retiring age of 65.

Mr. Deedes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that certain nationalised industries, British Railways in particular, are doing all that they might to encourage skilled labour aged over 65 to remain at work?

Sir W. Monckton: I have drawn the attention of the British Transport Commission, as part of the general approach I made to private industry, nationalised industry and central and local government, to the general policy of extending the employment of older persons. I have had a reply from the Commission that they are implementing this policy so far as circumstances permit, and where there are schemes which operate now which require retirement at a fixed age, they are being reviewed in conjunction with the trade unions concerned.

Mr. Callaghan: Does the Minister think that his moral position will be stronger if he can say the same thing about his own Department?

Sir W. Monckton: I am quite prepared to answer a question about my Department, if it is put down, I hope to the satisfaction of the hon. Gentleman.

School Meals Service (Redundant Workers)

Miss Herbison: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he intends to take to find employment for the women kitchen assistants and dining room attendants who are, or will be, redundant as a result of the decrease in the number of children taking school meals.

Sir W. Monckton: Any worker who registers at the nearest employment exchange will be given every assistance to find suitable employment.

Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that I first put this Question down to the Secretary of State for Scotland, asking whether, in some of these areas where people have been made redundant, there is any chance at all of getting work for them? Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and perhaps make joint representations with him to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to withdraw this increase in cost so that the numbers will not go down, but that the children will be fed and these women kept in work?

Sir W. Monckton: I assure the hon. Lady that I did appreciate that she did not impute all this to my Department, and I will, of course, consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will be answering Questions on a similar matter later.

Mr. Hamilton: Could the Minister give specific details about this problem if a Question is put down to him?

Sir W. Monckton: I do not think it ought to be put down to me; that is the point.

PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTIONS

Mr. Dugdale: On a point of order. I rang up your office this morning, Mr. Speaker, to know if I could put down a Private Notice Question about the riots which took place in Nigeria, and I was informed that a Question had been put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway). In those circumstances, naturally, I did not pursue the matter further, but it does not appear that there is any Private


Notice Question today by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough, and I should like to know what the position is.

Mr. Speaker: As a matter of fact, the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) had submitted a request for a Private Notice Question before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) had done so, but there was actually on the Order Paper a Question in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White).

Mr. Dugdale: For today, Sir?

Mr. Speaker: No; it is on the Order Paper for tomorrow or the next day.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(CONTINUATION OF DUTIES ON HOPS, etc., AND BEER.)

3.33 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, to leave out "fifty-seven," and to insert "fifty-four."
I understand that it would be for your convenience, Sir Charles, and that of the Committee if at the same time we were to discuss the Amendment in line 15, which is in precisely the same terms. Both these Amendments are designed to cover the same point, and their object is to limit the proposed extension of the duties on hops and beer from four years to one. As the Clause stands, it is proposed to extend the duties on hops and beer—

Mr. Arthur Colegate: On a point of order. It is extremely difficult to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and many of us are anxious to follow the argument.

The Chairman: I hope that hon. Members leaving the Chamber will do so quietly.

Mr. Fletcher: I was saying that the object of the two Amendments is to reduce the proposed renewal of these duties on hops and beer to one year. I think it was rather significant, and indeed ominous, that when the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was moving the Second Reading of the Finance Bill he was conspicuously silent about this Clause. He dealt with a great many Clauses in the Bill, I must confess, in a sequence which was rather difficult to follow but he said nothing whatever about Clause 1. He jumped from Clause 28 to Clause 2, went on to Clause 4 and subsequently to Clause 31.
This is the first Clause of the Bill, which proposes that very important duties should be extended for four years. We have had no explanation at all why these duties should be renewed or what revenue the Treasury expect to receive from them. I think it is very doubtful whether the House should be invited to renew these


duties at all. In the first place, the duty on hops is £4 per cwt., and there is duty of £1 an ounce on hop oil, and a countervailing duty of l0d. per barrel of 36 gallons on imported beer. I am well aware that it has been the custom of the Committee for many years to renew these duties at four-yearly intervals, but I think we are entitled, before we agree to renew them this year to ask the Government for some explanation of their policy with regard to the beer duties generally.
It will be remembered that when these duties were last renewed by the Labour Government in 1949, the renewal was coupled with a remission of the general Excise Duty on beer of 1d. per pint. I should have thought that there ought to have been some remission of the Excise Duty this year, and on this occasion, when the Chancellor has so much revenue to give away, I should have thought that one of the first things he would have thought of, and ought to have done, would be to reduce the duty on beer by at least 1d. per pint.
Everybody knows that the price of beer is absurdly high. The duty at the moment ranges from 6½d. to 10¼d. per pint according to the specific gravity, and a great many working people find it impossible to afford the glass of beer to which they are entitled at the end of a day's work. After all, the Chancellor has claimed that this is an incentive Budget. I can think of no greater incentive to the working man, and to people like you and I, Sir Charles, who work very long hours, as well as to all workers in industry, than a remission in the duty on beer. I am quite sure that if the Chancellor really wanted to increase output and production, there is no better way in which he could do it than by entitling working men to feel that, at the end of a hard day's work, they can get a glass of beer at a reasonable price.
Why is it that the Government have not done so? Why do they prefer to reduce direct taxation instead of indirect taxation? They know perfectly well how much the cost of beer comes into the budget of a great many of the people on whom this country depends for an increase in production. We have heard not a word about that. In spite of that, the Chancellor prefers to make a remission of Income Tax from which at least

20 million people get no benefit whatever. Therefore, I do not think the Committee should pass this Clause unless we have some clear indication from the Government of their future intentions regarding this preposterously high beer duty which is being imposed on the country at the present time.
I know that the Tory Party are the friends of the brewers. Is this being done in the interest of the brewers? The Financial Secretary told me yesterday, in answer to a Question, that the cost of reducing the duty on beer by a 1d. a pint would be £25 million. But that is on the assumption that the brewers make the same profits. When the Labour Government reduced the beer duty by 1d. a pint four years ago they were careful to see that the brewers' profits were also reduced. I should have thought that in this Budget we could have looked forward not only to a reduced duty on beer, but also to some provision for curtailing the profits which the brewers make at the present time.
There are some other things in connection with this Clause which I find difficult to understand. What revenue do we get from the Customs Duty of l0d. a barrel on imported beer? What revenue do we get from the duty imposed on imported hops? Is it not a fact that brewers get practically all the hops they want from this country? Do we not export a great quantity of hops, and do we not run the risk, by imposing these rather niggardly duties on imported hops, of having corresponding duties imposed by other countries on the hops which they export to us?
As we have had no explanation whatever about the reasons for this Clause and no justification for it, I hope that the Committee will not agree to renew the present duties for more than one calendar year.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: This duty was originally imposed by the present Prime Minister in 1925, but I am not suggesting to the Committee that that is the only reason we should repeal it today. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing to renew it in order to erect a kind of fiscal memorial to the stewardship of the Treasury by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister,


but if he is, it is really the most inappropriate memorial that be could erect, because at the present moment this duty performs a function exactly opposite to that intended by the Prime Minister when he imposed it.
It is quite true that this duty was renewed in 1949 by the Labour Government, but the situation has now completely changed owing to a new agreement which has been entered into under the Hops Marketing Scheme. I suggest to the Committee that this is one of the rare occasions on which the interests of the Treasury, the brewers and the beer-drinking public all coincide, and that that is a reason for removing the duty which, as I shall show in a moment, produces no revenue whatever.
The broad issues about which we are concerned are, first, whether we should grow hops—which was the Prime Minister's original idea—instead of food, and secondly, whether if we do that the farmers ought to be indirectly subsidised by the beer-drinking public. Those are the two general broad propositions that we ought to consider every time this duty comes up for discussion.
3.45 p.m.
I now wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the question of whether, in fact, this duty serves any useful purpose at all. In war-time hops have always proved a liability and one of the first things we do on the outbreak of war is to plough up a great quantity of hop fields. In 1914 we had 33,000 acres under hops, and by the end of that war we had reduced the figure to 16,000 acres. Because of that, and because in the inter-war years agriculture was in such a difficult position, there was a Government control scheme for hops until 1925. When the scheme was brought to an end, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Prime Minister, introduced the duty with which we are dealing today. He said this about it:
It is very small, but very shocking; it is nakedly protective. … For the last five years hops have been rigidly, rigorously controlled under an Act passed during the time of the late coalition of blessed memory. That Act expired in August of the present year, and I have been confronted with the alternatives, either of renewing the control or of agreeing to a protective duty. I have chosen the latter, and I am confessing to the Committee the reason why. Control would be utterly sterile.

The right hon. Gentleman has now, in fact, imposed control under the Hops Marketing Scheme so that the sterile control which was not the reason for introducing the duty is now introduced. He went on to say:
But the duty will produce £130,000 in the first year and £250,000 in a subsequent year, as much, that is to say, or almost as much, as the additional grant which I have been able to give to the Universities of the country for higher education."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1925; Vol. 183, c. 67–8.]
The original object of this duty was the laudable one of supporting higher education, but under the present Minister of Education—I reckon the average yield is only £180 a year—it is unlikely that it will even supply her latest commitments for higher education. Indeed, it would be hardly sufficient for the sum she is proposing to grant for adult education.
When the duty was imposed, the price of hops was round about £10 a cwt. That meant that this was a 50 per cent. protective duty. If we are to continue the duty we ought to think of continuing it in the same terms, but now, of course, the price of hops is round about £26 a cwt., so that the duty does not perform the same function as it did originally.
The history of the duty showed that it was singularly ineffective in assisting the farmers or doing what ought to have been done. By 1930 the price had gone down to £4 15s. a cwt. and three years later it was up to £16 10s. a cwt. The Hops Marketing Scheme was introduced which now, in fact, entirely controls the hop interests. I commend to the Chancellor the Budget statement on the matter by the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain. In 1933, Mr. Chamberlain said:
I propose to renew this duty … but in view of the representations which have been made to me by users that difficulties may arise out of the co-existence of a duty with some form of quantitative regulations under the Agricultural Marketing Bill, I am prepared to say now that if any such regulations should be introduced, I should be ready to consider whether any modification of the duty were required."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1933; Vol. 277, c. 51.]
All I am asking the Chancellor to do, now that the conditions laid down by Mr. Chamberlain have, in fact, been fulfilled, is to carry out that pledge given in 1933. In fact, a quantitative regulation was introduced in 1950. The Hops Marketing Scheme consists of what I


cannot help thinking is a rather highhanded part, but nevertheless a part, of the law in the shape of an agreement between the Brewers' Society and the Hops Marketing Board. I understand that the hon. Member for Tiptree or Wavertree, or at any rate some sort of tree, is one of the members of that Board. I am sorry that he is not in his place to tell us about the working of this agreement.
I understand that the agreement can be enforced and in fact is enforced by the Minister. Indeed, when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) was the Minister of Agriculture, a committee reported that steps of that kind should be taken. I understand that in fact the Minister of Agriculture appoints the chairman of this body, which is representative on the one side of the Hops Marketing Board and on the other side of the Brewers' Society.
When the then Financial Secretary was piloting the 1949 Finance Bill through the House of Commons, we were in some difficulty because under the old agreement made in 1939 the brewers were entitled to import up to 17½ per cent. of foreign hops and could carry over from any one year to the next year the hops that they had not imported. During the war, when we had to concentrate on more important food supplies and raw materials, hops were cut off from our import lists and by 1949 there were to the credit of the brewers no less than 421,000 cwt. of hops which, under the agreement, they could import at any time if they so wished. Therefore, they could have imported twice the normal crop in any one year if they had so chosen.
In those circumstances I think that everyone on this side of the Committee will agree that the Financial Secretary was right at that time in resisting an Amendment which seemed to me to indicate no real knowledge of the hop industry. It was put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) and was designed to extend the period of these duties for 10 years. I do not think that it was a proposition that would commend itself to the Parliamentary Committee of the Brewers' Society.
In 1950 the Brewers' Society concluded a new agreement, Section 8 of which states:
In any period of 12 months … brewers will not import an aggregate of more than 1,000 cwt. of foreign hops (required for brewing of lager and other types of beer) unless the whole English crop of merchantable quality marketed in that 12 months period has been purchased or contracted for.
In those circumstances there can be no import of foreign hops.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Bing: The hon. Member says, "Hear, hear," but suppose the hop crop failed, would he then like to see the price of beer raised to something which he has not foreseen?

Mr. Nabarro: My constituency is a very considerable producer of hops. In fact, every hop farmer is at present a keen supporter of the Hops Marketing Board arrangements. They provide an adequate reserve against a lean year.

Mr. Bing: Exactly, and in those circumstances the whole existence of this duty militates against a greater export trade in hops. I should have thought that the hon. Member was not so interested in beer as to want to see all the hops consumed at home and that he is prepared to allow a reasonable proportion to go to the export trade.
In the last four years it is true that the Chancellor has been able to collect from this duty no less than £2,547. Unfortunately, as a good deal of this beer has gone abroad, he has had to pay drawbacks on that of no less than £1,910 in the last four years. That means that in four years the total amount which the Exchequer has gained through these duties which the Chancellor is making it his first task in this Budget to renew is £637, or about £180 a year.
But let us look at the complications that are involved in this. In 1948–49 we had to pay back £1 to the Isle of Man. The next year the Isle of Man paid us £1, and the following year we had to pay back £2 to the Isle of Man. On the figures for 1951–52 we had £3 from the Isle of Man. [An HON. MEMBER: "One up."] Is that kind of accountancy necessary? We have had great talk from hon. Members opposite about cutting out unnecessary bureaucratic procedures, but is it really necessary to make it the first task


in a Finance Bill to renew a duty which in four years has secured for us £1 or £2 net from the Isle of Man? While we do not make any money out of this duty we nominally maintain these very complicated arrangements because we have to give a one-third rebate in respect of hops grown in the Dominions if we receive any from them. I do not know what happens if the hops are grown in the Isle of Man.
There may well be countries which maintain duties against our hops because we maintain duties against foreign hops generally. Where a duty brings in no revenue and serves no useful purpose, there is reason why even a Conservative Government might not try to remove it. Our export trade in hops is small but useful and averaged about £2,500,000 in the last three years. About one-third to one quarter of the crop at present seems to go abroad. We exported 107,000 cwt. in 1951 and 77,000 cwt. in 1952 as compared with 16,000 cwt. in 1939. Under the present arrangements, since no hops can be bought from abroad until there are no English hops available, if there is a failure of the English crop there will be an extra charge imposed on beer. In 1931 the yield of the hop crop was only about 8·7 cwt. per acre as compared with 11 to 14 cwt. even under the present rather more strict methods of computing acreage under hops. If the hop crop fails we have to import foreign hops and perhaps impose an extra charge on beer.
There is a further and more general point that should be considered. It is that because of protection of this kind the English hop growers are technically falling somewhat behind some of their continental competitors. It might well be desirable that the Ministry of Agriculture should get together with the Brewers' Society and say that if, technically speaking, the English hop crop turns out to be not so good as the foreign hop crop there should be an opportunity of putting pressure on the growers by saying that we would import a certain amount of foreign hops.
I do not want to go into technical details so well known to the hon. Member for Kidderminster, but there is an important development abroad of a seedless type of hop. If the hon. Member consults Parliamentary Members of the

Brewers' Society, who very fortunately for him sit on his side of this Chamber, he will learn that this is one of the difficult problems that confront the English brewing industry at present.
4.0 p.m.
The real problem of beer is that of Greek wine. In order to preserve beer one needs to put a certain amount of resin into it. In the same way as the Greeks resinate their wine, so the brewers resinate their beer, and resin comes from hops, although it is called some other name in the brewing trade, as everything else is, including the water that they put in. At the moment there is a technical dispute about the matter, but I understand that the Californian hop contains 40 per cent. more resin than does the English hop, so there may well be an argument that the Minister of Agriculture should permit the importation of more foreign hops if the duty were removed. The quantity of hops admitted is entirely under the control of the Ministry of Agriculture, for it controls the scheme under the Hops Marketing Board.
To sum up, I support the Amendment because there are obviously drawbacks and it would be impossible to remove the duty straight away; it is necessary to allow a year's transitional period in order to allow a convenient period for the withdrawal of the duty. The duty should be removed, in the first place, because it brings in no revenue, and no longer even supports higher education. It involves considerable Customs calculations, even down to the working out of a few pounds in our account with the Isle of Man. If we cancelled the duty we might be in a position to bargain for the remission of duties on British hops sent to foreign countries.
The late Mr. Neville Chamberlain took the view that once an effective quantitative limitation scheme was introduced the duty ought to be reviewed, and that is the review that I have suggested the Chancellor should make. If there were a failure of the English crop—it is always possible, for this is a very chancy agricultural project—a duty would suddenly be imposed on the Board to no point at all, because the object of the duty was to protect the English crop, which is now completely protected and the only occasion when the duty can apply is when


the English crop is not there to be protected.
The removal of the duty would enable the users of hops, the growers and the Ministry of Agriculture to work out a scheme which would give what I understand hon. Gentlemen opposite seek, the stimulus of competition to the British hop growers, and would take in all aspects of agricultural policy, including how many acres ought to be under hops and how many under food. In those circumstances I hope the Chancellor will again look carefully at the duty and not ask the Committee to renew it in its present form.

Mr. Nabarro: I hope my right hon. Friend will reject both these Amendments. I have no direct interest in the production of hops, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) suggested, but thousands of acres in the western part of Worcestershire, in my constituency, are devoted to the production of hops.
The Hops Marketing Board is an admirable example of organised marketing and the prevention of wastage in the processes of cultivation and distribution. A quota is set each year by the Board for the whole of the United Kingdom; there is an agreed acreage in which the Ministry of Agriculture have a say. It is true that imports of hops are almost denied, but why should we not give our own hop producers the first place in the English market?
The hon. and learned Gentleman made great play of the fact that there might on some occasion in the future be a failure in the English crop of hops. That has never occurred, because hops are grown in a dozen different places in the United Kingdom and it has never been known for all the hop crop to fail, in any one year, in every one of those areas. I believe that the stability of the hop-growing industry at present can be directly attributed to two factors. One is the excellent organisation of the Hops Marketing Board, which should be an example for all similar horticultural boards in the future. The second factor is the stability which is given by the import duties arrangements over a fairly long period. If the Amendment were carried, it would mean an annual review of the import duties—

Mr. Bing: The hon. Gentleman, perhaps not for the first time, has not appreciated the argument that has been addressed to the Committee. The amount of hops which can be imported is not now controlled by the duty; it is controlled by the arrangements made by the Board. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to continue the Hops Marketing Scheme, that is why the duty is unnecessary.

Mr. Nabarro: The Hops Marketing Board is primarily an advisory body but with certain executive powers in this country, and I believe it would be most damaging to interfere with a scheme which has worked admirably for the last few years and has certainly done no harm to either producers or consumers. The hon. and learned Gentleman also made allusions to the efficiency of British hop growers and producers. He implied that they are lagging behind foreign competitors technically. I will send him a copy of the Anglo-American Productivity Report on hops which he has obviously not troubled to read, for had he read it he would readily have learnt that England leads the world in hop production technique.
I hope my right hon. Friend will reject this misguided and ill-conceived Amendment and ensure a period of stability for import duties which is what our hop-producing industry needs, that is, a minimum period until 1957.

Mr. James Glanville: The subject under discussion is hops and I know nothing about hops, never having been a hop grower, but I do know something about beer. No one in the Committee will dispute my right to say I am a good judge of beer. I claim it unashamedly. I would sooner spend my time having a pint or a half-pint of beer in the bar than in the way some people spend their time; but that is by the way.
What are the Government Front Bench doing to ensure that the brewers exhibit patriotism and enthusiasm on the occasion of the Coronation? I want to make a suggestion which is not as ridiculous as it sounds. I am not making a set speech; I stand here with no cards in my hand and nothing up my sleeve. When are the brewers going to be brought to heel? I am not concerned about the hops tax or any other tax. Are the


brewers—there are any number of their representatives on the benches opposite —going to agree to give the first half-dozen pints to all their customers on Coronation day, free, gratis and for nothing?
That may sound ridiculous, but the Working Men's Club and Institute Union in the northern counties is giving 15 to 20 pints per man on Coronation day. If the working men's clubs can do it, why cannot the vested interests of the brewers do it? We know that they pour a lot of money into the Tory Party funds, and probably that is one reason why they cannot do it. We also know that they stole from us the public houses in the new towns in order to enrich themselves.
The working man is not concerned about the strength of the beer but about the cost of it. In all the working men's clubs in my area—and I defy contradiction by any one; my hon. Friends can prove this—they are not concerned about the laughter of my teetotal fanatical friends. As far as I am concerned they can go to hell. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] Order it is. This is the point of view I want to place in front of the country—that the working men's clubs can afford to give away this vast amount of money because we brew our own beer. We do not get it from Truman's or Hamble's or Buxton's or anybody else— not even Remnant's. As soon as the rest of the workers get the sense to be affiliated—

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Glanville: I will finish. Do not worry, son. As soon as they set up working men's clubs and start to sell their own beer, they will co-operatively solve the problem because nobody on earth can deny that the brewers are millionaires, with their friends on the other side of the House. The working men's club and institute movement is a movement which will save the working class in this country. We spend our money in sending the old people to the seaside for a holiday. We spend it on giving them tea parties and trips to the country. The profits from the working men's clubs go there, while the profits from the breweries go into the pockets of the Tory Party.

The Chairman: I think we are getting wide of the Amendment.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I am afraid I cannot follow the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Glanville) into the somewhat intriguing possibilities which he has placed before us and which certainly indicate to people of certain tastes the tourist attractions of the county of Durham. The Clause is simply a Clause to continue for a further four years the import duties on hops which since 1925 has been continued for four-yearly periods by a succession of Governments. The effect of the Amendment would simply be to provide that the continuation of those duties should be for a period of one year instead of four years.
I am sorry if the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) regretted what he called my conspicuous silence on the Clause on Second Reading. I can only call in aid that had I dealt separately in that speech with every one of the Clauses of the Bill, I should still be speaking. I am sorry if I hurt his feelings by not dealing with this Clause.
One of the reasons it has not attracted very much attention is that it is simply a Clause to continue a state of affairs which has lasted since 1925—for 28 years. It is not a revenue tax. The revenue obtainable is very small—not quite as small as the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) seemed to think, but not of great significance. It always has been, and has been intended to be, a protective duty to protect the home producer of hops, to give him a margin of protection against the import of foreign hops. That has been its purpose and is the purpose of continuing it, as we suggest it should be continued, for a further period of four years—to continue that protection and at the same time to give the home producer the sense of security which its continuation for such a fixed period as this will undoubtedly give. That was the view taken by previous Governments—in this case a wholly sensible view—and we suggest that, as in certain parts of the country this is a matter of considerable interest to those who earn their living in hop production, the protection ought to be continued for a further period of four years.
4.15 p.m.
We do not believe that the arrangements to which the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch referred in connection with the Hops Marketing Board


destroy the desirability of giving the security which a preference duty of this sort will give to the producers. Hon. Members will appreciate that in this, as in many other forms of agricultural production, it is highly desirable that the producer should be able to plan for a year or two ahead. That is the reason for the period of four years which we suggest and which is the subject matter of the Amendment. It is perhaps not as interesting a subject matter as some topics which have been mentioned by way of illustration in the course of the argument but it is the issue posed by the Amendment.
We have considered carefully the future of this small, but, to those concerned at least, not unimportant form of agricultural production, and we have come to the conclusion that the degree of security which the continuation for four years would give is, in all the circumstances, justifiable. We feel that it would be wrong to put the producers in a position of alarm and uncertainty which a lesser continuation would undoubtedly create. That is all there is to it, but may I once again apologise to the hon. Member for Islington, East for not having spent some minutes of my Second Reading speech on it, perhaps in lieu of something else?

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I am bound to say that the Financial Secretary has given an extremely disappointing reply. He seemed to me not to have attempted to answer the extremely cogent arguments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). Consequently, I am afraid I must press the arguments again. It is perfectly true, and my hon. and learned Friend made the point emphatically, that there is no revenue interest in this Clause. It may be described as small beer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think it is reasonable to make a very minor comment—I will not call it a joke, but a humorous comment—in the early stages of these proceedings.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: A small joke.

Mr. Gaitskell: This protective duty was originally introduced by the present Prime Minister before there was any control scheme. It is not denied that we have at present a very rigorous form

of control. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) completely misunderstood what my hon. and learned Friend said. As I understand my hon. and learned Friend, he was in no way criticising the present arrangements made between the Hops Marketing Board and the farmers. He was saying that those arrangements make this duty completely unnecessary, and as we believe there are certain disadvantages here in connection with exports, we would have thought that on balance it was a matter for grave doubt as to whether the duty should be continued.
The Financial Secretary has not challenged my hon. and learned Friend's figures. My hon. and learned Friend said that the agreement made between the farmers and the Hops Marketing Board was that no foreign imports beyond 1,000 cwt. should be purchased until after the whole of the English crop had been purchased, so that in effect it would normally be the case that the total imports would be limited to 1,000 cwt. The duty has no significance, therefore, from a revenue angle, but equally it has virtually no significance from the protection angle. The protection is provided by the agreement which the Hops Marketing Board has made and which ensures that the brewers do not import hops except to this completely minimal extent.
In the circumstances, I am sure that my hon. Friend was perfectly right to ask whether we still need the duty. What conceivable purpose can there be in it? He drew attention to the fact, which I do not think the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) really controverted, that if there were a bad crop here we should be bound to buy more foreign hops, and that there would then be a quite considerable increase in the price, and presumably in the price of beer, because of the duty. That would not be the intention of the Government, I suppose. They would not mind hops coming into the country if the crop here failed. Why, then, keep the duty, which will be effective in circumstances when we do not want it to be effective?
There is the point about the repercussions on our trade agreements with other countries. The Chancellor is often telling us how anxious he is to encourage a free flow of trade—I think that is


the phrase he generally uses—between the different countries. We will not introduce at this point our controversies about dollar trade and non-dollar trade. Let us assume we are talking about European trade. There are almost continual discussions about tariffs with our European friends. Surely it would be some concession, some reassurance, to them if we were to offer a reduction in the tariff here against a reduction in the tariff which is, no doubt, imposed in other countries on our own hops. That might be a very valuable way of increasing the free flow of trade, if not in hops, then, by extension, in fuel economy appliances. I am sure the hon. Member for Kidderminster will not mind my suggesting that we have an interest in exporting such things, and in getting some concession of this kind for that purpose.

Mr. Nabarro: What the right hon. Gentleman will not seem to understand is that we have a surplus capacity in this country for growing hops. The Hops Marketing Board last year imposed a quota of 87½ per cent. The other 12½ per cent. was not wanted in spite of the export trade. Therefore, it is totally unnecessary to import hops.

Mr. Gaitskell: Then it is totally unnecessary to have the import duty, because we are not importing any hops. Why, then, have the duty? I should have thought that by now the hon. Member would have understood what the argument was. I am afraid I must abandon him, for he is quite incorrigible.
I ask the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor to look at this matter again. They have given us no answer. The Financial Secretary comes here with a brief that clearly does not cover the points raised by my hon. Friend. I can well understand his embarrassment in the circumstances, but in the circumstances I think that the right thing for him to have done would have been to say, "These are interesting new suggestions which have been made, and in the circumstances, while I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn, we will undertake to have another look at this matter and bring it up again on Report." I should have thought that that would have been a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
I ask for that reconsideration now. If the Financial Secretary is not authorised to speak, perhaps the Chancellor himself will say a few words about it. My hon. Friend put forward a perfectly serious argument. We have had no answer from the Treasury Bench, and I think we are entitled to have an answer.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman feels that his hon. Friend's argument did not have the attention which it deserved. Surely the position is this. What the hon. Gentleman was seeking to argue, and what, indeed, as I understood him, the right hon. Gentleman himself was seeking to argue, was that the existence of the Hops Marketing Scheme and of the agreements made there under entirely removed the necessity for any protective duty. I think I summarise the argument accurately. I tried to say before, and I gladly say again, that an agreement of that sort, though it plays a valuable part in providing a proper degree of stimulus for this form of agricultural production, is not, in our view, an adequate substitute for a preference duty, and for this reason.
There is an agreement on prices which, to bring it into effect each year, has to be agreed annually. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has fully appreciated that. The agreement, therefore, that becomes operative is a complete agreement only on an annual basis. It is surely clear to the right hon. Gentleman and to his hon. Friends that, as a safeguard for a form of agricultural production which requires to be planned for some years ahead, that is not necessarily sufficient. We hope that this agreement will continue. Nothing I say is designed to cast any doubt upon this being a thoroughly sensible agreement, which I understand the Minister of Agriculture approves.
It is no good saying, in the case of production that has to be planned some years ahead, that, having attained that, we can throw away the protection by tariff which has existed for 20 years. Although what I have said, as I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree, is only an extension of the perhaps unduly telescoped argument I addressed to the Committee before, I would suggest to him that if we are to maintain this form of agricultural production, and the confidence of


those engaged in it, so that they may continue to work and if necessary to develop that particular form of production, it is really necessary to reinforce the agreement on this yearly basis by some degree of tariff protection. Successive Governments have thought this necessary in recent years.
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish quite wantonly to put this small form of agricultural production into the state of mind where it becomes uncertain and unhappy about its future. I must suggest to him that the argument he has used, and the Amendment in support of which he has used it, would have directly that effect, and for that reason I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not think it necessary to press it.

Mr. Bing: I intervene again only because quite clearly the Financial Secretary has spoken without either having read the agreement or understanding it. He says this agreement is on a year-to-year basis. Does he not realise what Clause 19 says? Clause 19 of this agreement says:
This agreement shall operate for a period of seven years beginning on 1st April, 1950, or for such shorter period as the hops marketing scheme may be operative.
In every other debate that we have had on this subject the Minister of Agriculture has been here to deal with these problems. It is really a grave discourtesy to the Committee that there is nobody here from the agricultural side to speak. Here we have an agreement made by the Minister of Agriculture. It is an agreement between the Brewers' Society and the Hops Marketing Board, and is a part, as it were, of the law, because this is an agreement which is made under the Hops Marketing Scheme.
As I understand the White Paper that was produced at the time when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) was Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Agriculture undertook that if at any time the Brewers' Society were unable to enforce their side of the agreement—and the Brewers' Society claim to represent now 95 per cent. or so of the brewing capacity in this country—there would be an order by the Minister. We have no representative of the Ministry of Agricul-

ture here, but as I understand the position, it can be statutorily enforced.
The Financial Secretary should tell us whether I am right or whether I am wrong. It is a difficult agreement to construe, but if I am right, then the Government, provided they maintain the Hops Marketing Scheme, can maintain for the next seven years an agreement by which never more than 1,000 cwt. of hops can be imported in any one year. How, then, can they possibly say that a duty which is to last for only four years is a better protection than an agreement which is going to run for seven? In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree to reconsider this Clause. Let him take it back and consider whether I am right in my view of the nature of the agreement, and, if I am, I ask him to reconsider the duty on the Report stage.
4.30 p.m.
I remind the Financial Secretary once again that in the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933, under which this scheme is made, such quantitative limitation was assumed by the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain as likely to be made. He said that if such an arrangement were made, then the tax ought to be reviewed. Why cannot it be looked at again under the same terms as those suggested by Mr. Chamberlain in 1933? We do not ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to do anything revolutionary but only what Mr. Chamberlain would have done in 1933. That is not asking them to go very far. I make a final appeal that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should look at the matter again.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not wish to mislead, but he will be aware that under the agreement it is necessary for the price to be agreed annually. If it is not, then a different situation arises. Though the agreement is valuable, it is misleading to suggest that it can wholly take the place of a statutory protection. If the hon. and learned Gentleman really wishes that this industry should continue to operate in the atmosphere of confidence which it ought to have if it is to operate successfully, there can be no conceivable objection to maintaining for the further four-year period the protective duty in


the shadow of which this industry has established itself.
In the circumstances, it seems unnecessary to pursue the argument about what happens if the agreement breaks down. All that it is necessary to establish is that the agreement is not a complete substitute for a protective duty. I submit that it has not been established that we can yet dispense with the protective tariff with the confidence that it gives to the producer.

Mr. Gaitskell: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and I both made what I thought

was a very reasonable proposition to the Government that this matter should be looked at again. I do not think that the Financial Secretary really understood at first what my hon. and learned Friend was saying or that he anticipated the argument. He has given no reply which satisfies me on the matter. Therefore, if my hon. Friends feel disposed to divide the Committee, I certainly advise hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to follow them.

Question put, "That' fifty-seven' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 258.

Division No. 174.]
AYES
[4.35 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Deedes, W. F.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Alport, C. J. M.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Jennings, R.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Donner, P. W.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Arbuthnot, John
Drayson, G. B.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Drewe, G.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Duthie, W. S.
Kaberry, D.


Baker, P. A. D.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Keeling, Sir Edward


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Kerr, H. W.


Baldwin, A. E.
Erroll, F. J.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Banks, Col. C.
Finlay, Graeme
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Barber, Anthony
Fisher, Nigel
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Barlow, Sir John
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Leather, E. H. C.


Baxter, A. B.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Fort, R.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Foster, John
Lindsay, Martin


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Llewellyn, D T.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) 
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Gammans, L. D.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Gamer-Evans, E. H.
Longden, Gilbert


Birch, Nigel
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Low, A. R. W.


Bishop, F.P.
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Black, C. W.
Godber, J. B.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gough, C. F. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bossom, A. C.
Gower, H. R.
McAdden, S. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Graham, Sir Fergus
McCallum, Major D.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Braine, B. R.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
McKibbin, A. J.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Harden, J. R. E.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maclean, Fitzroy


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Harris, Frederic (Croyden, N.)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)


Bullard, D. G.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
MacLeod, John (Ress and Cromarty)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Burden, F. F. A.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Butler Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hay, John
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Campbell, Sir David
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Markham, Major S. F.


Carr, Robert
Heald, Sir Lionel
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Cary, Sir Robert
Heath, Edward
Marples, A. E.


Channon, H.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maude, Angus


Cole, Norman
Hirst, Geoffrey
Maudling, R.


Colegate, W. A.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hollis, M. C.
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hope, Lord John
Mellor, Sir John


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Cranborne, Viscount
Horobin, I. M.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Horsbrough, Rt. Hon. Florence
Mott-Radclyfle, C E.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Crouch, R. F.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nicholls, Harmar


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwoed)
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Hurd, A. R.
Nield, Basil (Chester)




Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Roper, Sir Harold
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Nutting, Anthony
Russell, R. S.
Thorneyecroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Oakshott, H. D.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Odey, G. W.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Tilney, John


O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Turner, H. F. L.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Turton, R. H.


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Scott, R. Donald
Vane, W. M. F.


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Osborne, C.
Shepherd, William
Vosper, D. F.


Partridge, E.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Peake, Rt. Hon. o.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Smither, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Peyton, J. W. W.
Snadden, W. McN.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Soames, Capt. C.
Walerhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Watkinson, H. A.


Pitman, I. J.
Speir, R. M.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Powell, J. Enoch
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Wellwood, W.


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Profumo, J. D.
Stevens, G. P.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Raikes, Sir Victor
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Rayner, Brig. R.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Redmayne, M.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Storey, S.
Wills, G.


Remnant, Hon. P.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Renton, D. L. M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Wood, Hon. R.


Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Summers, G. S.
York, C.


Robertson, Sir David
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold



Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Robson-Brown, W.
Teeling, W.
Mr. Studholme and


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Adams, Richard
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Herbison, Miss M.


Albu, A. H.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hobson, C. R.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Holman, P.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Deer, G.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Delargy, H. J.
Houghton, Douglas


Awbery, S. S.
odds, N. N.
Hoy, J. H.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Donnelly, D. L.
Hudson, James (Eating, N.)


Baird, J.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Balfour, A.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bartley, P.
Edelman, M.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Bence, C. R.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Bann, Hon. Wedgwood
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A


Benson, G.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Janner, B.


Beswick, F.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Bing, G. H. C.
Fienburgh, W.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)


Blackburn, F.
Finch, H. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Blenkinsop, A.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Blyton, W. R.
Follick, M.
Jones, T. W (Merioneth)


Boardman, H.
Foot, M. M.
Keenan, W.


Bowden, H. W.
Forman, J. C.
Kenyon, C.


Bowen, E. R.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Freeman, John (Watford)
King, Dr. H. M.


Brockway, A. F.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Kinley, J.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Gibson, C. W.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Glanville, James
Lewis, Arthur


Burke, W. A.
Gooch, E. G.
Lindgren, G. S.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Logan, D. G.


Callaghan, L. J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
MacColl, J. E


Carmichael, J.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
McGhee, H. G


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Grey, C. F.
McGovern, J


Champion, A. J.
Griffiths, David (Rotter Valley)
Mclnnes, J.


Chapman, W. D.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
McLeavy, F.


Clunie, J.
Grimond, J.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Coldrick, W.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Collick, P. H.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mainwarning, W. H.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hamilton, W. W.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hannan, W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hargreaves, A.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Dames, P.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Manuel, A. C.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hastings, S.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hayman, F. H.
Mason, Roy


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Mayhew, C. P







Mellish, R. J.
Raid, Thomas (Swindon)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Messer, F.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W>


Mitkardo, Ian
Rhodes, H.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Mitchison, G. R.
Richards, R.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Monslow, W.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Moody, A. S.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thornton, E.


Morley, R.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Thurtle, Ernest


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Timmont, J.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Tomney, F.


Mort, D. L.
Ross, William
Usborne, H. C.


Moyle, A.
Royle, C.
Vianl, S. P.


Mulley, F. W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wade, D. W.


Murray, J. D.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wallace, H. W


Nally, W.
Short, E. W.
Watkins, T. E.


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Oldfield, W. H.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Oliver, G. H.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
West, D. G.


Orbach, M.
Skeffington, Arthur
Wheeldon, W. E.


Oswald, T.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Padley, W. E.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Paget, R. T.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Wigg, George


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Sorensen, R. W.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Pannell, Charles
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Willey, F. T.


Paton, J.
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, David (Neath)


Pearson, A.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Peart, T. F.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Popplewell, E.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall) 
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Porter, G.
Stross, Or. Barnett
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C)


Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Price, Phillips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Swingler, S. T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Proctor, W. T.
Sylvester, G. 0.
Wyatt, W. L.


Pryde, D. J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Yates, V. F.


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)



Rankin, John
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Reeves, J.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Arthur Allen.


Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bing: I should like to say a few words now that we fortunately have the presence of the Prime Minister. It would be ungracious of me not to congratulate him on the retention of the duties which he imposed in 1925 and to commiserate with him on the fact that they are now carrying out the opposite purposes to those for which he imposed them. It would be a pity if the Committee were to pass this Clause under any misapprehension as a result of the recent speech of the Financial Secretary.
Of course, there cannot possibly be any disagreement by the committee on the price of hops because the matter is decided by a majority and there are two independent members of it appointed by the Minister of Agriculture. This committee has been persuaded to deal with this matter by the Financial Secretary who does not appear to have read any of the agreements which deal with it, who is not the Minister responsible for it and who knows nothing about it, but who has had the misfortune to misinform hon. Members on every single matter on which he has spoken.

I would call his attention to what he said in the Brewers' Almanack:
The agreement provides for the average price of the whole crop to be fixed each season by the Permanent Joint Hops Committee"—
which, of course, the Minister can control because he appoints independent members who can fix the price on one side or the other. Then it goes in a great deal of detail into the principle on which the price is fixed.

The whole of the argument upon which the Committee have been persuaded to extend this provision for four years is based on a misapprehension for which the Financial Secretary is responsible. In those circumstances, I hope that, now that the Prime Minister is here and in charge of the ship again, he will intervene. After all, it was he who imposed the tax in the first place. It has fulfilled all the purposes which it was intended to do; it is now doing exactly the opposite of what the right hon. Gentleman intended, and in those circumstances it is very unfortunate that it should be continued.

If I may make this final appeal to the Prime Minister, now that he is here— I see that the right hon. Gentleman is now leaving us. I appreciate that he realises that I was about to refer to the


late Mr. Neville Chamberlain. I was only going to make this final appeal to the Committee—that here is a matter on which it would be possible to reconcile the Prime Minister and Mr. Neville Chamberlain. If we could achieve that and also reconcile the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary, we would be welding together the party opposite, because it was when the Foreign Secretary resigned that the Chancellor saw fit to follow Mr. Neville Chamberlain. Here is a chance, on beer, where they can come together again. I think that for the sake of the amity of the party opposite the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to agree to reconsider the Clause.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(POSTPONEMENT OF PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY ON CERTAIN BEERS BREWED BY BREWERS FOR SALE.)

4.45 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to move in page 2, line 26, to leave out "twelfth," and to insert "fourth."
This is not about small beer; it is about big beer. This Clause deals with strong beer and lager beer, and the effect of it, unless I have misunderstood it, is this. At present brewers pay their duty for a month's brewing on the 25th day of the following month. What is sought to be effected by this Clause is to postpone that payment in the case of strong beer and lager beer for a further 11 months, subject only to one condition, that the beer should be kept for three months in storage.
Here, again, there was a certain coy reticence by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite on the subject of beer upon which, as a rule, one expects them to have something to say. This passed unnoticed in the Chancellor's Budget speech, and it was only on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill that the Financial Secretary let us have a few precious words explaining his reasons for giving this 11 months' credit to brewers. What he said was:
Clause 2 deals with the subject of beer.

So far, I agree with him. He went on to say:
It enables payment of duty in respect of high strength or lager beers to be postponed up to 12 months.
So far, I agree with him. He then said:
The reason is that these beers, I am advised, require to be kept to mature for a certain length of time after brewing. There are no facilities for storing beer for home consumption in bond, and there is thus "—
I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) will take note of this—
a certain discouragement against the production of beers which require longer storage, if the duty is payable, as at present, within a few weeks."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1953; Vol. 515, c. 584.]
He also said that there was a question of competition with the Continent.
Those reasons seem to me to be completely inadequate. Indeed, I do not regard them as reasons at all. What happens is that the beer requires to be stored for a certain time. There is a certain time in the Clause, which apparently is three months, and the brewers who so store it qualify for this additional advantage. If it is not so stored, they do not. We can therefore take it that, on the advice given to the Financial Secretary, there ought to be storage for three months.
What I fail completely to understand is why, even assuming storage for three months to be necessary, the credit extended to the brewers should go on for a further nine months beyond that. Consequently, this Amendment seeks to limit the period of credit to the period of storage; or, to put it more accurately, to a short time after the period of storage corresponding to the present short time after the period of brewing.
I trust that the Financial Secretary will accept this Amendment. If he does not, there are some very pertinent questions I should like to ask him. The first is: If somebody has to carry the expenses of keeping beer beyond the time of storage and maturing, why should it be the Government, and therefore the citizens of this country, some but not all of whom drink beer and few of whom drink these somewhat exotic brews, instead of the brewers themselves? Have the brewers reached such a stage of impoverishment under a Tory Government that they are no longer able to carry their beers in


storage on their own financial resources for a period of eight or nine months?
The second question is a rather similar one but not the same. Why is it necessary to contemplate the retention of these beers unsold for a period of eight or nine months after the storage has finished? We are told by the Financial Secretary that there are no facilities for storing beer for home consumption in bond. Are there or are there not other facilities? Would it not be possible, if necessary, to provide for the conversion of facilities for storing out of bond into facilities for storing in bond? What, in short, is the reason for this quite extraordinary concession? Why is it made to this particular group of people, and why is it made to these particular kinds of beer?
Now, beer of over 1,070 degrees specific gravity is no ordinary brew. It is not what one gets out of a barrel. It is not even what is commonly called pale ale. It is not Bass and it is not Worthington. It is something in the beer line that nearly blows your head off. It has a number of X's that one staggers to look at. This is indeed strong beer, and I was interested to hear from the Financial Secretary that he was advised that there was competition in this beer from abroad. Lager beer I certainly understand. But I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North will allow me to say that I have drunk beer in many parts of the world, and many kinds of beer, but abroad I have never found beer of such an appalling potency as can be concocted by the British brewer when he is put to it. I do not know what he puts in it.
I gather that storage is some of the secret of the composition. But whatever it is made of, it is powerful and expensive stuff, and I should have thought it carried considerable profits with it. Why in regard to this somewhat luxury type of beer should there be a concession of a year's credit? We might very well remember that since hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite came into power a year's credit has come to mean twice as much as it used to, and I suppose it is in some obscure form part of the monetary policy of the Government to give the brewers a year's credit which now, under their other arrangements, is worth about twice as much as it used to before they came

into power. I just do not see the reason for it.
Turning to the other kind of beer, there is another interesting question I should like to ask the Financial Secretary. I can imagine that if strong beer is put in a barrel and left there for a time it does, in the manner of even more potent liquors, perhaps become stronger. But why does lager beer have to be kept for three months? What is the result if it is drunk before storage? What is the difference if it is drunk after storage? I have not the least doubt that the Financial Secretary will have taken advice on the matter from the experts in his Ministry. There is, for instance, the Treasury cat—the only cat, I believe, that is kept on Government rations. Has he tried the Treasury cat with lager beer before and after storage? If so, with what result?
This is a very remarkable provision, and to those of us who have not got this expert knowledge it appears wholly unnecessary to extend this provision to lager beer. One agrees that there is some competition with lager beer, but is it really the policy of the Government that in brewing, and, so far as I can make out, only in brewing, an extra year's credit should be given to the British brewer of lager beer because without it he appears unable to compete with Continental lager beer? I cannot believe that that can be the case.
I have put, quite shortly I hope, the points that occur to me, but I trust that the somewhat light nature of some of the comments on heavy beer will not prevent whoever answers for the Government from taking this matter seriously. After all, we have had a rather unfortunate story with the brewing industry and the present Government. I should be out of order in discussing the merits or demerits of a very remarkable Measure dealing with licensed premises in new towns, which without any previous announcement was brought in at a very early stage in this Government's history, and which seemed specially designed to benefit brewers and, so far as I could see, no one else. It is in the light of that sort of Measure, and of the long association of the party opposite with the trade, that we are bound to look critically at these sorts of Clauses.
May I give hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite a useful tip for the next Budget? Do not put beer first. It is usually a matter which it is better to keep rather dark. I agree that the Government have done their best by not mentioning it in the Budget speech, and by making only a small and casual reference to it in the one speech in which it was mentioned. Would it not be easier to tuck the Clauses away right in the middle of the E.P.L. or Income Tax wilderness, where they might perhaps escape early attention? I suggest that, because of the connection of the party opposite with the trade, because of the particular advantages that they have given to the trade in the past, we ought to have a very full explanation of what appears to be a very singular and quite unjustified concession in favour of brewers who have got enough money to carry their own stocks for a year and do not need any Government help to do it.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) confessed that he was not an expert on this subject, and after listening to his speech I think that such a confession was hardly necessary. He seemed to think that certain alcoholic beers get stronger by being kept in the cask. I assure him that that is unscientific, and that the production of alcohol does not go on with storage in casks. I was interested to hear that he had found some beer which made him stagger to look at it. All I can do is to congratulate him on getting his pleasure so cheaply.

Mr. Mitchison: May I thank the hon. Gentleman for the expert opinion he has so kindly given me, and ask him whether, if storage is not required to strengthen the beer, he will tell us what it is meant for?

Mr. Nicholson: In the case of many alcoholic liquors time is needed for blending and development and the various chemical processes which take place. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman does not get the same pleasure from looking at a bottle of port wine as he does from looking at a bottle of strong beer, but wine improves with keeping, and whisky and other inferior forms of spirit, as distinct from gin, improve with keeping.
This is a proper procedure on the part of the Government and in line with various other concessions which have been made, for instance, the concession which was made to wine merchants a few years ago enabling them to rebond vintage port after it had been bottled. I think that it is perfectly proper that when an industry has to keep an excisable article before it can be in the best condition to be sold, it should be relieved of the burden of paying tax and Excise Duty and having to lock it up.
This is on all-fours with the law that applies to spirits and to vintage port. If brewers—and I am not a brewer—are placed in a similar difficult position of having to keep some of their products in bond—or in this case not in bond because there is not the volume of warehouse storage available—that is a perfectly proper concession. I was sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman reverted—I was going to say to type—to a side of his lower nature to make a smear campaign against the brewers and their connection with the Conservative Party. As I say, I am not a brewer, but I tell the House frankly that I do not believe that there is any unworthy connection between the brewing trade and the Conservative Party, and I do not think that sort of smear campaign does the party opposite any good. We are discussing a serious subject, and I think that the Committee could very well be spared that unworthy intervention.

Mr. Bing: Is the hon. Member aware that next, I think, to Mr. Rank the Brewers' Society are the largest contributors to the Aims of Industry?

Mr. Nicholson: If the hon. and learned Member—

The Chairman: Whether that is the case or not, that does not arise.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The purpose of this Clause is to deal with the position in which certain types of beer require a period during which to mature. It is a fact that what are called strong beers and also beers of the lager type, which is a type of beer rather like Continental beer, do require a certain period in which to mature.
Under the existing law, when beer is brewed the duty becomes payable quite shortly after it is what is technically called "charged." In the case of ordinary beer


which goes quickly into circulation no particular difficulty arises. In the case of those beers which require a period in which to mature, the effect of the present law is that the duty has to be paid in some cases some months before the beer can be sold and, therefore, there is perhaps discouragement to the brewing of these particular kinds of beer, and there is imposed on the brewer of these kinds of beer a disability which is not suffered by those who deal in other sorts of liquors since, for them, bonding facilities are available and it is not necessary to pay the duty considerably in advance of sale. Consequently, this Clause was put into the Bill.
I should like to clear up a point which I think misled the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I am sure he appreciates that it is extremely easy even for an hon. and learned Member to misapprehend a Clause of a Bill, and therefore I intend no discourtesy to him when I say that he does not appear wholly to have understood the effect of the Clause. Its effect is this. In the first place, to qualify for the benefits under the Clause, the beer has to be, as subsection (2) makes clear, kept for at least three months. That is, as it were, the qualifying condition. The right to have payment of duty deferred does not arise in the case of any other sort of beer than this. The beer having been kept for three months qualifies for the advantages of the Clause.
Of course, it is not intended, as I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman appears to think, that in all such cases payment of duty should be postponed until the 12th month. As he will see, this is an enabling or authorising Clause. It authorises the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to postpone to a period not later than the 25th day of the 12th month, but it is not intended by any manner of means to exercise that power to postpone except when the period of storage is something like that.
The way in which it is anticipated that this Clause will work, is this. In respect of beer which qualifies by being kept for three months and, therefore, comes within the advantages of the Clause, it will be for the brewer concerned to establish to the satisfaction of the Customs and Excise the period in which generally that brew is kept to mature. If, for example, it is kept for only four

months, then the postponement would be for a period of four months; that is, if it is kept on an average for four months, because one cannot tie this mathematically to a precise day. If it is kept for six months then the delay will be for six months. Therefore, the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman—and it was on his own premise a perfectly sound one in favour of the Amendment—falls to the ground. If the Clause were to postpone in all cases for 12 months, even though the period of storage was only three, I think that his criticism would have been justified and his Amendment wholly reasonable.
As I think he will appreciate, both from what I have said and by looking at the somewhat complex terms of the Clause again, a delay of 12 months is the maximum—it is a delay of up to 12 months. There is no intention to exercise that power unless the period of storage is something of that order. I hope that I have succeeded in explaining how the Clause will apply. May I explain why? As the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) pointed out, in the case of beer there are no bonding facilities and therefore the production of these kinds of beer which require storage —and here I come to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering—has given rise to this difficulty. I understand that lager beer requires storage if it is to be drinkable at all. It is not a form of beer which I like.

Mr. I. Mikardo: Hear, hear.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am glad that I carry the hon. Member with me on that point.
It is a fact that it is brewed in a somewhat different way from the ordinary English type of beer, and requires a period in which to settle down. That is the reason for the specific mention of beers of that type which attracted the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering. It is also a fact that these are the beers which are mostly in direct competition with imported foreign beers. The present system operates against the English brewer of lager beer and in favour of the foreigner, who in this case pays only Customs duty at the point of importation, quite possibly only very shortly before the sale takes place.


whereas the English brewer of this kind of beer has to pay duty in the early stages, when it is in the form of what are somewhat inelegantly called "worts."
The present system therefore operates against the home producer and in favour of the seller of imported beer, and, on balance, I imagine that that is a situation which hon. Members would wish to correct. I hope that I have sufficiently explained that this proposal is confined to those beers which take time to mature and that we have every intention of administering it in a way which will be fair but will give no unfair advantage. We shall exercise the power of postponing the collection of duty for a period which is related to the period of storage.
In those circumstances, I imagine that the arguments which, quite naturally, appealed to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering will strike him as having been largely met. I submit that this is a quite minor but sensible adjustment of the payment of duty. No duty is lost; the only effect is a postponement of the moment of collection.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: The Financial Secretary frequently referred to the question of giving the beer time to mature. Could he explain, for the benefit of my untutored mind, what takes place when beer matures? I have heard a denial from another expert, in another department of this infamous issue, that liquors do not become more dangerous with the time that is allowed to them to mature. My expectation is that in the time of maturing the alcoholic content of the beer—despite what the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) has said—is actually increased and should pay a higher rate of tax. That point has not been explained. I am quite willing to be corrected by the hon. Member if he can tell me what takes place from the point of view of the specific gravity of the beer during the time it is maturing.

The Chairman: That question does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Hudson: From the point of view in instructing us—particularly the un-instructed—on the question of the taxation of beer, after a long explanation

about its maturing, surely I may be told whether it is true that in the maturing the things that I expect takes place do take place.

The Chairman: That is not a question of the taxation of beer, but the quality of it.

Mr. Hudson: I want to know whether the quality of beer has anything to do with its specific gravity. If there were to be no alcohol at all in beer it would be a perfect beer, but is it called a matured beer when there is an increase in the alcoholic content, and is there such an increase in the maturing process? That is what I want to know.

The Chairman: I daresay, but that question does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Gaitskell: Surely the Financial Secretary has explained that the whole purpose of this provision is to do justice to brewers desiring to brew a beer which takes longer to mature. I think it is relevant for my hon. Friend to ask exactly what is the advantage or disadvantage of that. In passing, I may say that I do not accept the Financial Secretary's statement that this involves no cost. If I catch your eye later, Sir Charles, I hope to explain my point. If I am right and this provision does involve the Government in extra costs the question arises: what are we getting for all this?

Mr. Nicholson: Perhaps I might explain to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) that alcohol is the result of a ferment. When the ferment has ceased there can be no further production of alcohol. Whisky can be left in a bottle or a cask and there can be no increase in the alcoholic content. I imagine that the same thing applies to beer. I hope we shall be saved from the hon. Member's idea of a beer containing no alcohol.

Mr. Mitchison: What happens if the water evaporates?

Mr. Nicholson: That is a very important question. If the water in a cask of whisky evaporates the same quantity of alcohol remains. The strength of what remains might change, but there is no increase in the volume of alcohol.

Mr. Mikardo: I hope I shall not be misunderstood if I say that I desire to


leave these deep waters in which we have been immersed in the last few moments and return to the observations of the Financial Secretary. I am sure that the Committee will be grateful to him for his very clear explanation of the way this Clause is intended to work, but nothing in what he has said can disguise the fact that the effect of this provision is to put the brewers in a favourable position as compared with other manufacturers and traders.
To revert to the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), it seems, for some obscure reason—I do not wish to ascribe any improper motives—that of all the people engaged in commerce and industry it is always the brewers who are the favoured children of the party opposite. Brewers—and brewers of strong beer—are not the only people who have to hold stocks for a period. They are not even the only people who have to hold for a period stocks on which they have paid some form of tax in advance of their being able to use them. Why should it be that the manufacturers of other commodities and people engaged in other industries—some of which are much more vital for our economic welfare than the industry of manufacturing beer—are expected—

Mr. Nicholson: What tax is paid by them?

Mr. Mikardo: If the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) desires to intervene to ask a question, and follows the usual courtesies by getting on his hind legs to do so, I shall be delighted to give way.

Mr. Nicholson: Goods on which Purchase Tax is paid do not have to mature before they are in the best possible condition.

Mr. Mikardo: I am hoping to quote some examples of what I mean. I did not mention Purchase Tax, but there are some industries in which Purchase Tax has to be paid and then the goods have to mature. It is a fact that other industrialists are expected to bear this as part of their ordinary costs, and they do so, including many in industries which do not make anything like the fat profits that are made in the brewing industry. I do not see why it should be thought that they have to come along and successfully squeal to the Treasury about a little

addition to their cost and get some special consideration for it.
In the case of Purchase Tax, people sometimes have to hold the goods for periods very much longer than 12 months, not in order that those goods shall mature, but for other reasons as part of the normal hazards of trade. They have to pay in advance and recover the tax later. Take any firm of manufacturers which uses imported components, which are dutiable through the Customs. There, again, in many factories in this country there are imported components used on which the tax has been paid and which, because of the length of the production cycle or for other reasons, are held for a very long time before a sale is actually made. These manufacturers do not go crying on the Treasury shoulder and saying, "Can we owe the tax until we get it from those who buy from us?"
Take the example of a manufacturer who imports castings. In recent years, unhappily, we have imported a lot of castings, which are not usable until they go through a maturing process. They do not go through the process which the hon. Member for Farnham described in the case of beer, but they go through some maturing process, and not merely are they not so good until they go through it, but they are unusable. A manufacturer may import castings on which he pays a 20 per cent. duty, and he has to hold these things for a long time until he can use them. He does not squeal about that. Why should the brewer get exceptional treatment and advantage in delay on paying his tax which the purchaser of other products—I repeat, in many cases products more vital to our economy —does not get, and, so far as I know, has not even asked for?
I shall not deal with the financial advantage in this and the cost to the Treasury because my right hon. Friend has already indicated that he will deal with those points. I merely make the point that the case which the Financial Secretary has made in respect of the Amendment could be applied far more widely, and since it is not applied widely I see no reason why it should be applied for the benefit of people in one particular industry, which does fairly well anyway, and which always seems to get concessions from Conservative Governments.

Mr. Bing: The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) asked why we on this side of the Committee think that his party is in the pockets of the brewers?

Mr. Nicholson: That is an irrelevant question. You, Sir Charles, forbade me to reply to the hon. and learned Member when he made an irrelevant intervention, and I ask you now to rule him out of order.

The Chairman: The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) should not proceed with that matter.

Mr. Bing: I was merely going to say that, for whatever reason, this Clause is designed to favour a wealthy corporation and wealthy people, and gives them an advantage which the Financial Secretary was not prepared to give to the small man, who is left with a wireless set on his hands on which already he has paid Purchase Tax. The small man purchased it never knowing whether, in fact, there would be a change in taxation, and he will now have to pay the tax himself. He is getting no consideration, but the brewer is given express consideration.
On the technical side, there is much more to it. It is a far greater concession than perhaps the Committee at first realised. We have not heard from the Financial Secretary what is this type of strong beer. It is noticeable that the "Brewers' Almanack" which, for the benefit of the brewers calculates the amount of duty, stops short of 50 degrees and does not give any further calculations. I have just been doing a little calculation on my own, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will deal with this point. He knows that under the beer regulations a 6 per cent. allowance is given for waste. When the brewer comes to prepare a strong beer of this sort there is, in fact, very little waste at all. There is probably only waste of 1 per cent. to 2 per cent., so that the brewer is already getting a 4 per cent. concession from the Treasury. He is entitled to sell 4 per cent. of his beer duty free and yet charge the customer the full amount of the duty.
I reckon, on that—and I hope the Financial Secretary will give me his figures if mine are incorrect—that if we allow for a 2 per cent. waste, which I think is about the waste on beer as strong

as that, the brewer at least gains £1 on every barrel which he brews. So already he is getting a £1 rebate from the Treasury. Why should this man get this particular rebate from the Treasury when he is already given concessions which are denied to the poor man who is a small retailer? That is the reason why some Members on this side of the Committee think that these concessions to the brewers are not just coincidences. They flow from a deliberate policy of the party opposite designed to benefit the brewers and not to benefit the small man.
The Financial Secretary went on to say that the brewer was in some difficulty in competition with the importer of lager beer. For instance, the beer had to be stored for the purpose of maturity. It should be noted, however, that he is only storing it for three months or so, and already there is an advantage given to the maker of lager beer at home over the maker of such beer from abroad. As the Financial Secretary knows, if he ever understood the last Clause of the Finance Bill he helped to pilot through Parliament, there has been a renewal of the countervailing duty imposed against foreign brewers amounting to 10d. per bulk barrel. That would certainly be the equivalent of the amount of interest that would be payable over the period of three months for the duty payable on the storage of one bulk barrel in Britain.
What is being said is that, despite the great political and financial assistance which the brewing industry is getting, we now know that it is not efficient enough to compete with the foreign brewers even when given a preferential tariff over them. That is not a very good advertisement for the principal industry which backs hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Finally, we ought to have a few words about this strong beer. Who is it to be sold to and at what price is it to be retailed? Why is it that we should give any concession in order to encourage it? There are many popular delusions at the moment about the strength of beer. The fact is that the great majority of beers which are sold are extremely weak, and the Committee would be far better occupied in raising the minimum strengths, because otherwise my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) will be deceived. There are


going out with beer labels on them bottles which, I assure my hon. Friends, contain liquid that is little better than coloured water, and the Committee would be much better occupied in dealing with that serious problem before this one.

Mr. J. Hudson: If I am deceived in that matter why should I not be satisfied?

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Bing: All I was hoping was that a discussion would reveal how satisfied my hon. Friend ought to be with the brewers' present practice. I think the Committee ought to be told why we want this strong beer. How is it to be sold? How much of it is it expected will be sold? What are the estimates for the sale of beer of this strength? At what price is it to be sold? We do not wish to give a concession to the brewers if they sell the beer at such a price that they make a huge profit over and above the amount of duty paid.
More information is called for from the Parliamentary Secretary about the total quantity of beer and whether any assurances have been given to the hon. Gentleman by the Brewers' Society as to the price at which this beer is to be sold. Is it proposed to market it in bottle or cask and, if in bottle, will he see that they are of the measure they are purported to be? As hon. Members know, while it is an offence to sell vinegar without marking on the bottle the exact quantity contained in it, the Brewers' Society can sell any quantity they like of the next best thing to it without giving any such indication to the public. If special facilities are being given to the makers of those strong beers, we ought to know a little more from the Financial Secretary about where it is coming from and how much it is.

Mr. Gaitskell: My hon. Friends have made some serious criticisms of this proposal and have asked a number of penetrating questions which I hope the Financial Secretary will endeavour to answer. I want to add one or two to the list. The hon. Gentleman said that this concession would cost the Treasury nothing—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My exact words were that there was no loss of duty; that there was a postponement of payment.

Mr. Gaitskell: But there is a loss of revenue in the sense, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that since the duty is not paid the Government have to borrow more money in the intervening period, and they now have to pay higher rates of interest for that money as a result of Government policy. So there is a cost amounting to the interest charged on the money outstanding for the longer period. At the same time, that is exactly the advantage of this concession to the brewers and I do not imagine the Financial Secretary will say that it is no advantage to them. If, however, I am wrong and there is no financial advantage to them, perhaps he will explain?
Would he tell us, then, how much, in terms of additional interest cost, the concession is likely to amount to? Again—I presume, it will be the same sum—how much will the brewers get out of this concession in terms of hard cash? I would also like to ask a few questions about other aspects of the matter. I do not want to get into trouble, with you, Sir Charles, so I will not refer to the kind of beer, but I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to satisfy both my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) at the same time; although that may be a little difficult, but I hope he will try.
I want to know what proportion of the total output of beer is likely to be affected? Are we to understand that it is quite a substantial affair, that a lot of strong beer will get this concession? Will it have an effect on the proportion of different beers brewed? Is this a negligible concession that none of us will notice or will those of us who frequent such places find that in the clubs and pubs there will be now a definite change in the type of beer on sale?
Finally, would the hon. Gentleman say why it is that only now is this concession being made? I do not recall being asked by anybody, when I was Chancellor, to make such a concession. Presumably it has not been pressed for before, because I suppose earlier Tory Chancellors would have conceded it if it had been pressed for. What is the reason why it is being asked for this year? I do not imagine that it can have anything to do with the Coronation, because I see from the Bill


that the concession does not come into force until after the date of the Coronation. Could the hon. Gentleman enlighten us on this point and, at the same time, reply to the various other questions put by my hon. Friends?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will indeavour so to do and I will reply first to the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo), who raised the question of the comparison betwen the time at which duty becomes payable on beer and on other commodities. While it is always easy to adduce aspects of the matter one way or the other, hon. Members should recall that, in general, beer pays duty at an earlier stage than almost any other dutiable commodity. If I am not appearing to speak Irish, beer pays duty before it is beer. It pays duty when it is worts, that is, the unfermented malted fluid. That is perhaps material when we come to comparisons such as the hon. Gentleman suggested with other commodities which, at the very worst, do not pay duty until they have come into being.
Secondly, if we take the comparison between beer and other alcoholic liquors, in my earlier speech I drew attention to the fact that beer alone of alcoholic liquids does not have bonding facilities, with the consequent postponement of payment of duty. As regards the comparison which the Gentleman made with imported goods of other kinds, it is the fact that many of them can be warehoused and the duty becomes payable not at the moment of importation, but of leaving the warehouse. Therefore, though we are all entitled to our opinions, the comparisons which he made do not affect the main proposition, which is that it is somewhat unreasonable that in the case of these beers the payment of duty should fall on them at a time so inevitably in advance of the time at which they could possibly be sold.

Mr. Bing: I think I am right in saying that the provision contained in the Customs and Excise Act passed recently was to provide that the duty on beer is not normally paid until the 25th of the month following the month in which the brewing took place, although it is true that the estimate of original gravity is made of the worts.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, the duty falls to be paid on the 25th day of the month following that in which it is charged. That formal wording means, as I understand it, the time at which the then unfermented worts were inspected and the specific gravity taken.
In any event, whatever comparisons may be made—and we all tend to make comparisons to favour our argument—it is the fact that one starts on the basis that beer pays duty under the ordinary law at an early stage. In the case of beer which is brewed and quickly distributed, I do not think that causes any unreasonable hardship and there is no proposal in this Clause to alter it. It is only in the case where maturing is necessary for the marketing of that beer in proper condition that this provision applies. I understand, Sir Charles, that I am not allowed to reply to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) as to the precise effect of that process, but perhaps I shall not be subjected to your censure if I say that, generally speaking, the processes are not such as would cause him undue alarm.

Mr. J. Hudson: It would not in any case.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In that case, that is an assurance that is easy to give.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) went into the interesting question of the effect on the Revenue of the postponement of duty. As I said earlier, no duty is lost but payment is postponed. That raises an interesting economic argument depending upon whether, at the time of that postponement, the Government are borrowing and are compelled to borrow as the result of that postponement. That raises a most interesting matter on which it would be easy to speculate.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman, however, that when discussing far larger sums of money on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, he rather took me to task for suggesting that the system of initial allowances, with their postponement of tax, cost anything at all. That argument is not wholly consistent with that which the right hon. Gentleman is now adducing.

Mr. Gaitskell: I did not say that the initial allowances cost nothing. What I


said was that they were not a very heavy cost, as the Financial Secretary had suggested. But can the hon. Gentleman tell us how much duty will be lost here? It will be lost in the first year, at any rate, and unless the system is changed it will be lost for ever.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I shall give the right hon. Gentleman the figures for the amount postponed. Obviously, a precise figure must depend on the degree to which this concession is used and the degree to which these types of beer are subsequently brewed. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is a matter for the trades concerned: So far as we can estimate, however, duty which would otherwise have been paid in 1953–54 to the extent of £350,000 will be posponed. The amount of the postponement in the following year will be £65,000, and then the curve will pass completely out.
I stress that that is not duty that is lost —it is duty postponed. Whether there is any marginal loss to the Exchequer as a result of interest calculations is a speculation in which we can all indulge.

Mr. Joseph T. Price: Surely, if the hon. Gentleman applies that logic and reasoning to the general revenue payable to the Crown, if we all postpone payment of our Income Tax for 12 months, the State would be in a hopeless position.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: So would the hon. Member. I am not saying that the postponement of payment of duty even of what is quite a small amount in proportion to the very large yield of revenue, is negligible. What I am saying is that it is a postponement, and not an actual remission of duty.
As to the extent to which it will operate, so far as one can see it is not likely to have very much effect in altering the present pattern of consumption of beer. What would have been likely to happen had this step not been taken would be that probably rather less of these beers would have been brewed. So far as we can see, therefore, none of the enlivening consequences in the public houses, to which one or two hon. Members referred, are likely to happen.
This is, perhaps, not a very great matter in the light of the other subjects which we shall in due course be discuss-

ing. But it seems to us to be reasonable, as I think the debate has confirmed, that, subject to the safeguards to which I have referred, and which I shall not weary the Committee by repeating, and in order that the duty should be paid at a reasonable time in the case, and in the case only, of the beers that qualify by being stored for the three-months' period, and in view, also, of the absence, in the case of beer, of the bonding facilities which are available, of course, to the manufacturers of all other forms of alcoholic liquor, there should be this sensible provision.
This debate originated on the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) to reduce the period from 12 months to four months. We have had on this first Amendment a general discussion, perhaps rather fortunately on the whole purposes of the Clause. If I have been led into going a little wide, it has not been without temptation offered. It has been perhaps useful that although the Amendment was itself narrow, we have been able to discuss the main purpose and effect of the Clause.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Gentleman suggested that I had misunderstood the Clause. I reassure him that I had not misunderstood it. This is what puzzles me: why take power to extend this extraordinary credit on these extraordinary beers for 12 months? If it is meant only to be used for the period of store, why not say so?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: For this reason: that there may well be cases of beers where the period of storage exceeds 12 months.

Mr. Mitchison: Why not say so?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: We do not propose to take power to postpone for more than 12 months. It would follow from the hon. and learned Member's proposal that if storage were for 18 months, there should be a postponement for 18 months.

Mr. Mitchison: Whichever is the less.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That would be administratively inconvenient in that it would involve keeping open the books for a long time, and it would not be


worth while. In all these arrangements there has to be a certain administrative common sense. The greater part of the beers concerned mature within this period, and it seems to us, therefore, that the easiest way of doing so is to allow for a maximum of 12 months. There is, further, the difficulty that if we lay down precisely the exact period of maturity as being the limit, difficulties might arise where the limit was exceeded by a day or two. Our proposal seems the common-sense way of handling what is not, perhaps, a very complex matter.

Mr. Bing: Would the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to deal with the point which I made, and will he give to the Committee the actual quantities of beer of over 70 degrees which, he considers, will be affected by this procedure, and the quantity of lager? If he is not in possession of those figures or the estimates for the future, perhaps he could give the actual quantity of beer of over 70 degrees which was sold last year.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not have those figures with me. If they are obtainable, I shall be only too glad to send them to the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. Bing: Surely we ought not to pass the Clause if the figures are not even obtainable. The hon. Gentleman has asked the Committee to pass a Clause to give a concession to the brewers. Now he tells us that he does not know whether they have brewed any beer of this sort, and that he does not know whether they will do so. This is carrying the thing to a fantastic degree. Would it not be possible for this matter to be delayed, at any rate until the Committee were in a position to know whether the Government's proposals will affect a single pint of beer?
Do not the Brewers' Society have these figures? I see their representative sitting on the back benches. He should not be there—he should be on the Front Bench. As with the representatives of the Cities of London and Westminster, there should be a tradition that the senior member of the Brewers' Society should be permitted to sit on the Conservative Front Bench, at least for the period of the Budget debates. Perhaps, the hon. Gentleman is in a position now to give the Committee the information with which he ought to have opened the debate.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants it, I can now give it. I cannot break down the figure between the two types dealt with by the Clause; he will have to have it all in one. The amount of the two kinds involved over the last annual period was 30,000 bulk barrels.

Mr. Bing: I say once again that this is extremely unsatisfactory. If it is only 30,000 bulk barrels, and we do not know which is strong beer and which is lager, it is quite impossible for the Committee to come to a decision on this matter, because the conditions which apply to the one and to the other are quite different. The 6 per cent. waste which is given in regard to the strong beer already gives the makers of that a considerable premium. There may be a case in regard to lager beer, but there is certainly no case in regard to strong beer. I do not think that any beer of this sort whatever is brewed anywhere in this country.
This is merely a piece of advertisement pushed into the Budget by the Brewers' Society, who will now be able to say, "We are going to brew beer of such a strength that the Government have to make special provision for it." I challenge the hon. Gentleman to say on the Report stage whether any barrels of this strength were brewed last year and, if so, how many? If it were only 30,000 bulk barrels altogether it seems to me that the English lager industry is not doing as well as it should and so far as the other part is concerned, it does not seem that any strong beer is brewed at all. Are we to have figures on this at any time?

Mr. Gaitskell: Once again, the Financial Secretary has not been very successful in satisfying hon. Members on this side of the Committee. In particular, he tried to answer two of my questions but failed completely even to try to answer the third. That was, why is this change being made now? Further, he has failed to give any real indication of whether it was necessary to make the change. Is the hon. Gentleman claiming that the brewers are suffering serious hardship and need a little relief, or what is the reason? The hon. Gentleman must make an attempt to reply to that question.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the right hon. Member so desires; the question why


this is only done now is almost the oldest question in the world. One answer is that we live in a progressive world. It really is not an argument against a reform—which, on its merits, no one seriously tried to controvert—to say that it has not been done before. The reason it is done now is that it appeared on the facts of the matter and with particular reference to the competition of foreign beers in the lager class that it was a reasonable thing to do now. I cannot say whether representations were or were not made to the right hon. Member and his predecessor. I do not know, nor is it my duty to know—

Mr. Percy Shurmer: They did not subscribe to our party funds.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think we shall be helped by observations of that sort. I hope the hon. Member will allow us to discuss these matters on a reasonable basis. I am trying to put a reasonable argument.
The position is that foreign competition has stiffened somewhat. That, no doubt, has made the desirability of this provision somewhat greater than it was during the time when the right hon. Member for Leeds, South was responsible. It seems in the circumstances of

today—and I do not think that the contrary has been seriously argued—that this is a reasonable thing to do as a result of the competition by which our own breweries in these particular lines will otherwise be adversely affected vis-à-vis the foreigner.

I pointed out earlier that under the present system the foreigner will generally pay the duty on lager beers at a stage considerably subsequent to the stage at which the English brewer pays it. That is why I should have thought the right hon. Member would agree that it is not an unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the reason is that this is the first year in which the brewers have asked for it to be done?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have said that I do not know and it does not seem to be my business to know whether or not it was discussed with previous Administrations. Perhaps the right hon. Member may know.

Question put, "That 'twelfth,' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 262.

Division No. 175.]
AYES
[5.55 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Drewe, C.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Brooman-White, R. C.
Duncan, Capt. J. A L.


Alport, C. J. M.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Duthie, W. S.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Billiard, D. G.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Arbuthnot, John
Burden, F. F. A.
Erroll, F. J.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Finlay, Graeme


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Fisher, Nigel


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Campbell, Sir David
Fleelwood-Hesketh, R. F


Baker, P. A. D.
Carr, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Cary, Sir Robert
Ford, Mrs. Patricia


Baldwin, A. E.
Channon, H.
Fort, R.


Banks, Col. C.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Foster, John


Barber, Anthony
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Barlow, Sir John
Cole, Norman
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Baxter, A. B.
Colegate, W A.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Beamish, Mai. Tufton
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Gammans, L. D.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Cranborne, Viscount
Glyn, Sir Ralph


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Godber, J. B.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.
Gough, C. F. H.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Crouch, R. F.
Gower, H. R.


Birch, Nigel
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Graham, Sir Fergus


Bishop, F. P.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Black, C. W.
Davidson, Viscountess
Grimond, J.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Bossom, A. C.
Deedes, W. F.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Bowen, E. R.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harden, J. R. E.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Braine, B. R.
Conner, P. W.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) 
Doughty, C. J. A.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G (Bristol, N.W.)
Drayson, G. B.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)




Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Schefield, Lt.-Col. W.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Soon, R, Donald


Harvie-Walt, Sir George
Markham, Major S. F.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Hay, John
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Shepherd, Williams


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Marples, A. E.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Heald, Sir Lionel
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Heath, Edward
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Higgs, J. M, C.
Maude, Angus
Smyth, Brit. J. G. (Norwood)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maudling, R.
Snaddon, W. McN.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Soames, Capt. C.


Hint, Geoffrey
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Mellor, Sir John
Speir, R. M.


Hollis, M. C.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Spent, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Hope, Lord John
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Stevens, G. P.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Horobin, I. M.
Nicholls, Harmar
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Storey, S.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Nugent, G.R. H.
Studholme, H. G.


Hurd, A. R.
Nutting, Anthony
Summers, G. S.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Oaksshott, H. D.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Odey, G. W.
Taylor, Williams (Bradford, N.)


Jennings, R.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Teeling, W.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Kaberry, D.
Osborne, C.
Tilney, John


Keeling, Sir Edward
Partridge, E.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Kerr H. W.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O
Turner, H. F. L.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Turton, R. H.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.




Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Pete, Brig. C. H. M.
Vane, W. M. F.


Leather, E. H. C.
Payton, J. W. W.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Legge-Bourke Maj. E. A. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
wade, D. W.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Pitman, I. J.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Lindsay, Martin
Powell, J. Enoch
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Llewellyn, D. T.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Profumo, J. D.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Watkinon, H. A.


Longden, Gilbert
Rayner, Brig. R.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Low, A. R. W.
Redmayne, M.
Wellwood, W.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Renton, D. L. M.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


McAddm, S. J.
Robertson, Sir David
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


McCallum, Major D.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Robson Brown, W.
Wills, G.


McKibbin, A. J.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Roper, Sir Harold
Wood, Hon. R.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
York, C.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Russell, R. S.



Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
MR. Vosper and


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) 
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Mr. Richard Thompson.


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Boardman, H.
Crosland, C. A. R.


Adams, Richard
Bowden, H. W.
Crewman, R. H. S.


Albu, A. H.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brockway, A. F.
Dames, P.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Attlee. Rt. Hon. C. R.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Awbery, S. S.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Burke, W. A.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Baird, J.
Burton, Miss F. E.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Balfour, A.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Callaghan, L. J.
Deer, G.


Bartley, P.
Carmichael, J.
Delargy, H. J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Dodds, N. N.


Bence, C. R.
Champion, A. J.
Donnelly, D. L.


Bern, Hon. Wedgwood
Chapman, W. D.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Benson, G.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)


Beswlck, F.
Clunie, J.
Ed., Rt. Hon. J. C.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Coldrick, W.
Edelman, M.


Bing, G. H. C.
Collick, P. H.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)


Blackburn, F.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Blenkinsop, A.
Cove, W. G.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Blyton, W. R.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)







Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lipton, Lt. Col M.
Rots, William


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Logan, D. G.
Royle, C.


Fernyhough, E.
MacColl, J. E.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Fienburgh, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Finch, H. J.
McGovern, J.
Short, E. W.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mclnnes, J.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Follick, M.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Foot, M. M.
McLeavy, F.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Forman, J. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Skeffington, Arthur


Freeman, John (Watford)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgfield)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Gibson, C. W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Glanville, James
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Sorenson, R. W.


Gooch, E. G.
Manuel, A. C.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Sparks J A


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossondale)
Mason, Roy
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mayhew, C. P.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mellish, R. J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Grey, C. F.
Messer, F.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mikardo, Ian
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanlly)
Mitchison, G. R.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Monslow, W.
Swingler, S.T.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Moody. A. S.
Sylester, G. O.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mortal, R.
Taylor Bernard (Mansfield)


Hamilton, W. W.
Mortis, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Taytor, John (West Lothian)


Hannan, W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpheth)


Hargreves, A.
Mort, D. L.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Moyle, A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hasting, S.
Mulley, F. W.
Thomas, lowerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hayman, F. H.
Murray, J. D.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, SE.)
Nally, W.



Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Neal Harold (Bolsover)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Herbison, Miss M.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon, P, J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hobson, C. R.
Oldfield, W. H.
Thornton, E.


Holman, P.
Oliver, G. H.
Thurtle, Ernest.


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Orbach, M.
Timmons, J.


Houghton, Douglas
Oswald, T.
Tommy, F.


Hoy, J. H.
Padley, W. E.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Usborne, H. C.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Viant, S. P.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pannell, Charles
Watkins, T. E.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pargiter, G A.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paton, J.
Weitzmann, D.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pearson, A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Irvine, J. B. (Edge Hill)
Pearson, A.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Irvine, W. J. (Wood Green)
Peart, T. F.
West, D. G.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wheeldon, W. E.


Janner, B.
Popplewell, E.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Porter, G.



Jeger George (Goole)
Price, Joseph T.(Westhoughton)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, NE.)


Jeger Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Price, M. Phillips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Johnson, James. (Rugby)
Proctor, W. T.
Wigg, George


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Pryde, D. J.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rankin, John
Willey, F. T.


Keenan, W.
Reeves, J.
Williams, David (Neath)


Kenyon C.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
William, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


King, Dr. H. M.
Rhodes, H.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Kinley, J.
Richards, R.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Leo, Frederick (Newton)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Leo, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Yates, V. F.


Lewis, Arthur
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)



Lindgren, G. S.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Arthur Allen and Mr. Wallace.


Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bing: I think that the Committee is entitled to a little more information, and perhaps some correction, from the Financial Secretary as to the meaning of what he has just told the Committee—I hope he will confirm whether I am right or wrong—that this Clause affects only 30,000 bulk barrels of beer.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I said that for the last period for which I could give the hon. and learned Member figures that was the amount of beer which would come within the provisions of this Clause. That is not quite the same thing.

Mr. Bing: So be it.
If the "Brewers' Almanack" is to be trusted, the total production of bulk barrels of beer in 1952 was 24,671,000. So what the hon. Gentleman has intro-


duced the Clause to deal with is one-eighth of 1 per cent. of the total beer of this country. This seems to me a most extraordinary concession to have made. Why should the brewers of one-eighth of 1 per cent. of the beer of this country be singled out for preferential treatment? Why should they get a financial advantage denied to everyone else? Why, for example, are the manufacturers of tobacco, who seem to me to be in a very similar position of having to pay the duty in advance and of not being able to recoup themselves until they have sold the product, not entitled to the same advantage? Why are the brewers singled out for this?
Why—I ask the Financial Secretary this again; I am sure he will see the implication which might be put on his lack of information—is he unable to say what is the amount of strong beer concerned? What is the sort of view which the Committee might well take if the Financial Secretary does not know? I am sure that we all acquit him of favouring any particular interest, I am sure that he is doing this perfectly blindly; his qualification so far has been that he has not understood either of the two Clauses that have been introduced. But the Chancellor is an able and brilliant man; why has he put up somebody who did not understand what he was talking about?
Perhaps the answer is that it was undesirable that anyone should be allowed to come to the Dispatch Box on that side of the House who knew what the facts were. Supposing it turned out that there was only one manufacturer of strong beer. Are we being asked to give a particular duty concession to one particular brewer without any information as to the number of barrels which this concession affects? That is the implication, when the hon. Gentleman cannot tell us how many barrels refer to strong beer and how many barrels refer to lager. Why should we be dealing with one-eighth of 1 per cent. of the total beer of the country? Why should that be put specially in the Budget? Why should this particular hardship have so struck hon. Gentlemen opposite?
Is it just one-eighth of 1 per cent. of the brewers who are in difficulties, and is there some particular reason why this

one-eighth of 1 per cent. should be favoured above the other brewers? I hope that the hon. Gentleman has used wisely the time of the Division. No doubt his vote was needed in the Lobby, but after that he could have made some inquiries, because I cannot believe that the Treasury could have consented to such a Clause being put in the Finance Bill without having any information to put before the Chancellor showing him what were the particular beers affected by it.
If the hon. Gentleman cannot answer, perhaps this is one of the questions which is dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. Perhaps this is a matter of patronage rather than of beer. It bears all that imprint. Why are we asked to deal with one-eighth of 1 per cent.? Concerning that amount, should we not at least be able to identify what it is? But the hon. Gentleman does not even know when he talks of one-eighth of 1 per cent. of the total amount of beer produced what beer he is talking about.
Before we pass from this Clause, we are entitled to have, if not from the Financial Secretary then from the Leader of the House or the Minister of Food, some indication which particular sort of beer they are talking about. Strong beer, according to the advertisements, is the best possible sort of food, and, no doubt, a good substitute for red meat. Perhaps the Minister of Food can help out the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and tell us what beers the Committee is asked to talk about today.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has put his finger on what is the real defect in this Clause, because the majority of hon. Members present at the moment do not really know what is involved. I wish to support my hon. and learned Friend, and, at the same time, perhaps give a little time to the Financial Secretary in which to collect the necessary information which will enable him to deal with the point that has been raised.
I do not want to go as far as my hon. and learned Friend in unduly baiting the Financial Secretary, although the hon. Gentleman is supported at the moment by distinguished Members of the House, to


whom my hon. and learned Friend referred—the Leader of the House and the Minister of Food. But, looking around them, I see on the benches opposite another expert who may be able to throw more light on the matter. I refer to the hon. Member who happens to be my representative in this House, because I reside in his constituency—the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant). I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman in his place, and I hope he will come to the rescue of his hon. Friend, because, in view of his long experience in this particular industry and in this particular field, the hon. Member for Wokingham knows a good deal more than the Financial Secretary or any other hon. or right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench.

Mr. J. Hudson: We shall all have our particular reasons for supporting various Amendments affecting liquor and the liquor trade, and, naturally, my reasons will not always coincide with those advanced by some of my hon. Friends, but I am certainly now in the position of being able to support this Amendment wholeheartedly.
I think it is very sad that we are dealing with a very small part of the total liquor produced in this country—about one-thousandth part. The 30,000 bulk barrels which have been mentioned represent about one-thousandth part of the total of 30 million bulk barrels produced each year. I wish we were able to deal with the whole of the 30 million barrels, because, as a Royal Commission once pointed out, it is the character of the liquor trade to tell falsehoods, and they said so quite explicitly, though perhaps in gentler language than I am using. They said that the trade tells falsehoods about the commodity which it purveys. A Royal Commission said that about the advertisements which the trade used about the contents of their barrels and bottles.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Gentleman seemed to say at the beginning of his speech that he was speaking to some Amendment. Will he say which one it is, because the one he has been talking about has not been selected by the Chair, and the question before the Committee is: "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"?

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Hudson: I am obliged to you for the correction, Mr. Bowles. I am speaking on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and I am saying that it would have been a better Clause to stand part of the Bill if this issue could have been settled; namely, that all the liquor produced, and particularly the liquor in the 30,000 barrels which now come within the scope of the Clause, could have been brought in, and if we could have had a clear notion of what it was that we were buying when these 30,000 barrels are offered to us.

The Temporary Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but he is trying to argue an Amendment that has not been selected, which he cannot do on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." His remarks are, therefore, slightly out of order.

Mr. Hudson: I am deeply grateful to you, Mr. Bowles, for saying that they are slightly out of order. I must make a further slight deviation in order to bring my remarks to a close and meet your requirements.
I only wish to say that this House would be in a much better position in all the debates that take place on this matter if we were rather more precise in the descriptions that have been made of the benefits that we are supposed to be conferring on the people in the various Acts and Regulations that have been passed, and, as I am quite sure that in all these disputes we confer no benefits upon them at all, I was only hoping that we might have had the chance, on this occasion, to have said precisely what it is that we are doing.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On the assumption that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) really desired his speech to be treated as a reasoned argument, I will certainly try to give him such information as he may have desired. In the first place, I was much struck by the fact that, on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," he seemed to be indicating his criticism of the Clause itself on the grounds that it affected so small a proportion of the beer brewed, a fact which he might naturally have deduced from the very small effect on the


revenue shown by the figures which I gave to his right hon. Friend at an earlier stage, but the various tirades in which he has indulged on this general topic do not seem to me to be quite consistent with the true dimensions of this proposal, as he now, at last, appears to understand it.
As regards the amount of beer which would be within the provisions of this Clause, taking the figures for the latest available period, I gave a figure of 30,000 bulk barrels, covering both lager and strong beer. I can, perhaps, add to that, if hon. Members are interested, the fact that the lager element is approximately 5,300 barrels, and the rest is made up of rather less than 25,000 barrels of strong beer. On the question which beers it will apply to, it is the fact that it will apply to any beer brewed by any brewer who brings the brewing of his beer within the conditions of the Clause. That is the provision which we are asking the Committee to accept, and it will be for the brewers themselves to decide whether or not they wish to bring themselves within the provisions of the Clause. If the Committee decides that this is a proper provision, the Customs and Excise will operate it in respect of any brewer who can bring himself within the provisions of the Clause.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(CUSTOMS DUTY ON MECHANICAL LIGHTERS.)

Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 3, line 7, to leave out subsection (4).
Clause 3 deals with the question of Customs Duty on mechanical lighters and, like Clause 1, is another Clause of the Finance Bill which the Financial Secretary passed over in discreet silence when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill.
The Clause as printed is one of the most of obscure Clauses I have ever read in any Bill presented to Parliament, but before making some observations on its form I want to say something on its substance, because it will be appreciated that the whole subject of duty on mechanical lighters has assumed an entirely new importance since we had the Budget speech and, indeed, since this Bill was introduced. Since then we have had the momentous Report of the Monopolies

Commission dealing with the monopoly of the match-making industry, and that Report has some very pertinent remarks to make about the only form of competition in regard to matches, namely, mechanical lighters, and in particular about the Customs Duty now being loaded on to mechanical lighters.
Therefore, the first thing we want to know is whether in representing this Clause the Government have had regard to the recommendations and observations of the Monopolies Commission in their Report. The Committee will be familiar with the fact that the Monopolies Commission have revealed what is a glaring abuse of monopoly power. They have pointed out that the arrangements in the match-making industry, which they describe in detail, form a complete and integrated monopoly and that the system as a whole operates, and is likely to operate, against the public interest regarding both the supply of matches and machinery for match making. We are all waiting to hear what the President of the Board of Trade intends to do about it, and it is against that background that the Committee this afternoon have to consider the Chancellor's recommendation for increasing the duty on some forms of mechanical lighters and depriving others of the exemption that they at present enjoy.
In Section 201 of their Report, the Monopolies Commission say:
Competition from lighters does not seem to have seriously affected the position of the monopoly, though it has no doubt restricted the possible expansion of sales of matches…. Lighters last for a good many years, and it is not possible to say how far the present level of sales exceeds the demand for replacements and represents a continuing encroachment on the market for matches.
This is the important passage:
The duty charged on lighters is heavy, and is at a flat rate per lighter, irrespective of quality and price, and this discourages the production of cheap, simple lighters of the war-time utility type.
It is also apparent from the Report that the British Match Corporation had a good deal to say about it. Were they instrumental in making suggestions to the Chancellor with regard to the duty on mechanical lighters, because it is quite evident to me from reading the Report that this monopoly is very concerned regarding what duty is charged on


mechanical lighters? In paragraph 150 they say:
We are told by B.M.C. that 'match manufacturers are confident of competing successfully against mechanical lighters provided that the two articles are taxed fairly in relation to each other.'
It would appear, therefore, that this monopolistic body has a very direct concern to see that there is no reduction in the duty on lighters. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will tell us, when for the first time he comes to explain this mysterious Clause in the Bill, what exactly is behind it, because so far we have not heard a word of explanation about it. I see that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has just come in, and I am sure that the whole Committee will welcome his appearance. I only wish he had been here a few moments ago, but I shall not go over what I then said. I am hoping that perhaps in the course of the debate he will tell the Committee what steps he is proposing to take with regard to the Report of the Monopoly Commission on the abusive monopoly which has existed for so long in the match-making industry.

The Temporary Chairman: Will the hon. Gentleman help me? He is seeking to delete subsection (4) which seems to provide for the making of regulations by the Commission and does not seem to have anything to do with raising or reducing the duty on lighter wheels. The first subsection seems to deal with that. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would address his remarks clearly to subsection (4).

Mr. Fletcher: I should very much like to do that, Mr. Bowles, in the hope that, having done so, and if we still have the President of the Board of Trade with us, I can then come back to the point I am making.

The Temporary Chairman: Not on the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman has moved, but perhaps on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Fletcher: As I understand it, subsection (4) is intended to remove any existing exemption from duty on
imported wheels for striking a flint.

The Financial Secretary nods his head. "Imported wheels for striking a flint" are one part of mechanical lighters, and, therefore, one of the instruments which compete with matches. My complaint about subsection (4) is that it is designed to remove exemption from one of the few existing instruments that can compete with this vicious monopoly which we find in the match-making industry and about which we are all awaiting an early pronouncement by the President of the Board of Trade regarding his intentions.
I shall now direct my remarks to the effect of the subsection as distinct from its intention. So far, I have only attempted to submit to the Committee what I think is the intention of the subsection, and I very much doubt whether the subsection as it stands carries out the intention of the Government. It says:
So much of subsection (1) of section two hundred and twenty-one of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952 … as relates to imported wheels for striking a flint shall cease to have effect"—
and these are the words to which I take great objection—
and any regulations in force under that subsection on the date on which this section comes into force shall have effect accordingly.
One might naturally inquire what Regulations are in force in Section 221 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952. I sought guidance on this point in the Library, but after several days of research I was told that there were no such Regulations. That struck me as being rather mysterious, so I put down a Question to the Chancellor which he was good enough to answer this afternoon. I asked the right hon. Gentleman:
What Regulations are now in force under Section 221 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952.
They are the Regulations which, if we adopt Clause 3 (4), are going to take effect accordingly. In reply, the right hon. Gentleman said:
No Regulations have so far been made under that Section.
He then went on to use words which I thought were very ambiguous and very disingenuous. He said:
The Mechanical Lighters Regulations, 1928, and the Mechanical Lighters (Amendment) Regulations, 1934, have effect as if so made.
With great respect, that is absolute nonsense. I have never heard such nonsense.


This really is reducing legislation by reference and delegated legislation by delegated sub-reference to the point of absurdity.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The Financial Secretary used to say that.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: As the Financial Secretary used to make that point in language far better than I can, I am sure that I shall have his sympathy. At any rate, we must have an explanation of what this means. It cannot be the case that the Mechanical Lighters Regulations, 1928, and the Mechanical Lighters (Amendment) Regulations, 1934, have effect under Section 221 of the Act of 1952. They were not made under that Act. There is nothing in that Act which says that regulations made in any other Act shall have effect as if they were made under the 1952 Act, and if there were it would not have any result.
The absurdity and the obscurity of this kind of legislation goes even deeper, as will be found if one looks at the Regulations of 1928 and the 1934 Amendment Regulations. In the Mechanical Lighters Regulations, 1928, we find not a single word about imported wheels for striking a flint. At the moment that is the only thing that we are dealing with. On the other hand, there is a reference in the 1934 Regulations, paragraph 2 of which states:
Imported parts of mechanical lighters, being wheels for striking a flint (hereinafter referred to as imported part or parts) may be received by licensed manufacturers of mechanical lighters without payment of duty….
Therefore, in the Regulations made in 1934 it is provided that wheels for striking a flint may be imported without payment of duty. Is it intended that in future imported wheels for striking a flint shall be imported without payment of duty, or is it intended in future that they shall be liable to duty? That seems to me to be a question which ought to be answered one way or the other. If, as I assume, it is intended that in future they should not be duty free, then one would have thought it necessary so to provide. This subsection certainly does not so provide, because all it says is that the Regulations made under the Act of 1952 shall have effect accordingly. These Regulations

which the Financial Secretary apparently had in mind were made under Section 6 of the Finance Act, 1928 and Section 5 of the Finance Act, 1933.
If we proceed with the rest of the subsection we notice that it apparently occurred to the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary, or at any rate to somebody interested in the matter, that it might be convenient for some members of the public who imported wheels for striking a flint to know where they stood in this matter. That is elementary justice. People who import articles into this country want to know whether they are liable to duty or not.
The subsection goes on to say:
… no duty of customs shall be charged on such wheels delivered without payment of duty by virtue of those regulations before that date….
That seems to suggest that under the existing law there is no liability to a penalty but, as a corollary, there is liability to a penalty if people go on importing these wheels for striking a flint without paying duty. If that is the intention, my first criticism is that it is essential to give effect to that intention in clear, precise and unambiguous language. But that is only my first criticism.
My major criticism of the subsection is that it is a perverse proposal, and that as a matter of policy, at a time like this when the Report of the Monopolies Commission draws attention to this ugly abuse of monopolisic powers, which caused some steps being taken in the public interest, it is absurd that anything whatever should be done by the Treasury to increase the duty on mechanical lighters which, as the Report points out, is already high, and which articles are the only form of competition which can have any curb at all on the monopolistic powers of the match industry. For those reasons I hope that I shall have the sympathy of the Financial Secretary and that he will accede to the proposals contained in this Amendment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) dealt with two issues—the somewhat complex procedural issue, and the issue of the merits of the subsecton. I shall try to address myself in succession to those two points.
In the first place, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, at Question time today,


during the course of the supplementary questions to my right hon. Friend to which he has already referred, he asked that steps should be taken to make available copies of the Regulations. He asked that they should be placed in the Library. I understand that that has been done, and I hope that it has been of convenience to him and to other hon. Members who are interested.
Then the hon. Gentleman asked how this subsection which he seeks to delete could refer to Regulations as having been made under the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, when, in point of fact, they were made, as he rightly pointed out, in the years 1928 and 1934. The answer is that Section 316 (1) of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, says so. It says:
Any order, regulation, direction, form or other instrument having effect immediately before the commencement of this Act"—
that is to say, these Regulations—
under any enactment repealed by this Act relating to any matter with respect to which the Commissioners or the Treasury have under this Act power to make orders or regulations or to give directions or impose conditions or restrictions shall, unless and until revoked or varied by the Commissioners or, as the case may be, by the Treasury and so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, have effect as if made, given or prescribed under that power.
As a consequence, Parliament provided that these Regulations made under the earlier legislation should be continued under the Act of 1952. That is a not uncommon provision in Acts, as this was, of a consolidating nature, although it is not a consolidating Act as such. It is a fact that the Regulations which cease to have effect under subsection (4) are those originally made in 1928 and 1934.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) indicated that from time to time I have expressed some doubt or dissent as to the complexity of provisions of this kind. I do not, to borrow a Scottish word, resile at all from anything that I have said on that subject, but it is the fact that when we are, as 1952 Act was doing, repealing a whole mass of legislation it is necessary to preserve in effect the Regulations previously made, since otherwise it would be necessary to make an enormous mass of new Regulations perhaps having precisely the same effect.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The Financial Secretary is now answering himself.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If I am so doing I think I am doing it more convincingly than was ever done from the benches opposite. Be that as it may, it is the fact that by this provision we are doing away with these Regulations and, therefore, assuming that the whole position is somewhat complicated, the present Bill clears up this particular complication by dispensing with those Regulations. I hope I have the hon. Member's sympathy on the procedural side, at any rate. We are cutting a small clearing in the jungle.
So much for the procedurals; now for the merits.

Mr. Hugh Dalton: Procedurals?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: So much for the issue on procedure.

Mr. Dalton: Hear, hear.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am glad I carry the right hon. Gentleman with me as to that. Under this Bill it becomes a dead issue because the Regulations are to go.
The substance of the change, as the hon. Member for Islington, East quite correctly stated, is to withdraw the privilege of duty-free importation of these wheels by manufacturers of lighters. I ought to explain why we think it right to withdraw that privilege. The other provisions of this Clause completely alter the basis on which duty is paid on these wheels. Under the system which came to an end—under this Clause—on 1st May, 1953, the amount of duty payable on these wheels was the same as had been paid on a complete lighter—in general. 7s. or 5s. That was part of the system which was provided some years ago to prevent the evasion of Import Duty by the importation of lighters in parts.
The Clause as a whole alters that provision, to the extent of not making parts of lighters—other than the main case or body—pay the full rate of duty which would be due on a complete lighter. The merits of that will have to be argued at another stage, but that is the effect, and the result is that the duty payable on a wheel, instead of being 7s. or 5s., becomes the duty payable under the Import Duties Act of 1952—an ad valorem duty of 10 per cent.
As the average cost of these wheels is l½d. the average amount of duty


payable becomes ·15 of a penny. In those circumstances the need for a system of duty-free importation of these wheels is infinitely reduced. The duty is reduced from a substantial sum to one that is purely nominal, and it does not seem necessary to maintain the administrative machinery which was necessary to work the system of duty-free imports. Consequently—and we have discussed this matter with the trade interests concerned, who do not dissent—it means that the administrative system which was necessary in the interests of our own manufacturers, in order to deal with a rate of duty of 7s. or 5s., becomes wholly unnecessary when we are dealing with a rate which is less than one-sixth of a penny.
6.45 p.m.
That is why this exemption is being withdrawn. It is sometimes necessary to have these provisions for duty-free importation, but they are justifiable only in circumstances in which a substantial amount is involved. When duty becomes as small as this it is not worth the trouble of the importer or the administrator to operate the system.

Mr. John Strachey: As a lay Member of this Committee I must admit that I have been left a good deal more bewildered by the Financial Secretary's speech than I was before. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) said, the main effect of this Clause—which he admitted was very obscure—was substantially to increase the duty on this part of a lighter. He did not feel that the subsection in question had that effect, but he thought that was its intention. As far as I understood what the Financial Secretary said, the effect of the subsection is exactly the opposite. He said that it infinitely reduces the duty payable on this particular part of a lighter. I should have thought that nothing could more fully substantiate my hon. Friend's contention that the subsection was obscure to the point of being incomprehensible.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry if I failed to make myself clear. I said that the effect of the Clause as a whole was to reduce the duty, but the effect of the subsection which the hon. Member for

Islington, East seeks to delete is to remove the right of duty-free importation. One matter is the effect of the Clause as a whole and the other is the consequential effect of the subsection.

Mr. Strachey: I follow that, but the effect of the subsection, as I understand it, is to remove the application of duty from one category to another—from the category of duty which was payable under these Regulations to a duty which is applied ad valorem and which would be a very much smaller amount. I wanted to ask the simple question why, if the duty under this subsection is now reduced to this extremely low figure—a very small fraction of a penny—the import duty should not be left out altogether, and the import of this part of the lighter made duty-free.
The Financial Secretary told us that the duty would be very small and it would certainly not be worth while to continue the old procedure. Why should not it be left out altogether? Whether that would be the effect of deleting this subsection I do not pretend to know, but surely that would be the simple thing to do? If the intention of the Financial Secretary and the Government is to give these parts of lighters duty-free entry into the country we should support them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East has said, at this particular moment, when we have had these very striking revelations on the alternative method of lighting a cigarette—by matches —an effective reduction to infinity of the duty payable on this part of a lighter is one we could support.
Is it clear, however, that that is the effect of this subsection? If it is, I imagine that my hon. Friend might reconsider his Amendment, but he was under the impression that the effect of the subsection was the opposite. We now understand from the Financial Secretary that there is a great reduction in the duty payable on this part of of a lighter. Why could not these parts be made duty-free?

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: I must confess that I share the misgivings of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) about this subsection which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) seeks to delete. If I understand the Financial


Secretary correctly, the position seems to be this. If the present situation is allowed to continue, it is possible to import parts of a lighter for assembly in this country, and by virtue of assembling those parts in this country reap a considerable advantage compared with those who do not import the parts but make the whole lighter and assemble it in this country.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: indicated dissent.

Lieut.-Colonel Upton: The Financial Secretary nods his head.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, he does not. He shakes it.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: It seemed to me that he shook it in a vertical direction.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, horizontally.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I accept his indication that he was dissenting with the proposition I was putting forward.
If that is not so, we are driven back to the other consideration on which my right hon. Friend spoke. This subsection seeks to obtain ·15d. in respect of each wheel imported for the purpose of constituting a component part of a lighter made in this country. The individual item of ·15d. is so small that I think the Financial Secretary might have told us the global figure. What does he expect to achieve by way of income as a result of imposing a duty of ·15d. on each wheel imported into this country? He did not disclose that in the course of his remarks. It may be that some high question of public policy is involved which persuades him that this information is not to be divulged. However, it places the Committee at a very considerable disadvantage, and in the absence of any further explanation which would enable me to appreciate what the Financial Secretary is trying to do, I am compelled to say that I shall support this Amendment as strongly as I can.

Mr. E. Fletcher: It will have become apparent to the Financial Secretary from the speeches he has heard that he has not explained the purpose of this subsection to the satisfaction of the Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) certainly did not understand the Financial Secretary's explanation; and after the speech

of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut-Colonel Lipton) we are driven, in order to try to understand this Clause, to interpreting whether the Financial Secretary is nodding his head vertically, horizontally or diagonally. It does make things very difficult. For my part, the position is now even more confused than it was at the beginning.
Could we try to get one or two of the most elementary aspects of this subsection clear? I think we are all agreed that the intention, and perhaps the effect, of this subsection is that in future imported wheels for striking a flint will not be duty free. At the moment they are duty free; they pay nothing at all. In future they will not be duty free. As I understand it, the Financial Secretary, in justification of removing the exemption, says that the duty will be very small; that it will be only ⅕d.; and therefore does not matter very much.
If it is as simple as that, and if the duty being imposed is negligible, why impose it at all? What is the necessity for it? Why has it suddenly become administratively necessary? It cannot be a duty reason. It cannot assist the Revenue to have a duty of ⅕d. For what reason has it suddenly become administratively necessary to have a duty of ⅕d. on wheels for striking a flint? We have had no answer to that question, and I do not think we can part with the matter until we have some explanation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will endeavour to clarify the matter further for the hon. Gentleman's benefit. The subsection he seeks to delete is one under which the importation of these wheels can be duty free when it is being effected by a manufacturer of a lighter. Generally speaking, and apart from that exception, these wheels have been subject to duty under the old position, and though at a very small rate they will continue generally to be subject to duty. Subsection (4) deals with the provision which gave to manufacturers an exemption from duty when they imported these wheels for the purpose of manufacturing the complete article. The argument I was attempting to adduce earlier was that the necessity for that provision, which was a substantial necessity when the rate of duty on the article was 7s. or 5s., was quite clearly infinitely less necessary when the


rate of duty had been reduced to something less than ⅙d. That is the position.
It is not, therefore, quite a question, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, of "Why impose a duty at all?" The duty is part of the general ad valorem 10 per cent. under the Import Duties Act. It is a question of the exception, and it is the exception to liability for duty, whose real purpose has ceased to exist owing to the change in the amount of duty, which we propose to remove.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Jay: We have now finished with the wheels we were discussing on subsection (4), but these wheels are only wheels within lighters. Subsection (4) is a subsection within a Clause, and we are now discussing the main Clause, which, unless I completely misunderstand it, continues the Customs Duty on mechanical lighters. In subsection (1) we read that:
subject to the provisions of this section, the duty of customs … shall be charged on mechanical lighters imported incomplete as well as complete.
It shall be charged on all imported mechanical lighters.
Since that is what the Clause substantially does, I think we are entitled to ask the Government, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) briefly in moving his Amendment, whether a new light has not been thrown on this matter by the report of the Monopolies Commission on the subject of matches. This duty on mechanical lighters, which I think is agreed to be a heavy duty, was originally imposed, and has been maintained, mainly for protective purposes in order to achieve an equality, a counter balance as between the duty on matches and the duty on lighters. Its purpose, I think the Financial Secretary will agree, was to prevent what would at that time, before we had the Commission's Report, have been regarded as unfair competition between the two. We have now, however, thanks to the Report of the Monopolies Commission, a number of new facts established on which, no doubt, the President

of the Board of Trade will give us his views later tonight. We now know that this match combine is a monopoly.

7.0 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman: I think it would be quite out of order to discuss that on this Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I do not know for certain whether this Clause increases the duty or not, but if it does the right hon. Gentleman may refer, as he was a few minutes ago, to the idea that the countervailing duty may be unfair.

Mr. Jay: I was not simply going to discuss the question of matches, Mr. Bowles. I was going to ask the Committee whether it is desirable now, in view of these facts, to have a countervailing duty on mechanical lighters, which is substantially the effect of this Clause. It could have been argued, no doubt, before we had this additional information, that if we were to have a tax on matches—and there is a heavy tax on matches—we must have a corresponding tax on mechanical lighters; but surely that argument is considerably weakened, for the producers of matches have other advantages which are peculiar to themselves.
So far as I know the manufacturers of mechanical lighters are not combined together in any particular monopoly or ring, and have not been found to be indulging in any particular restrictive practices, but we have now been informed—I summarise the facts very briefly—that the British match industry is what the Commission calls a "complete and integrated monopoly." We should also all agree, I think, with the view of the Commission that competition is desirable with this match monopoly to protect the public interest. I should have thought that that would have been the view of hon. Members on the opposite side of the Committee, who have often lauded the values of competition, and in particular the President of the Board of Trade, who made many brave speeches about private monopolies in former Parliaments.
These facts have all been established. I do not think any of us are in any doubt that mechanical lighters are, perhaps, the most powerful competitors with matches. If it is the case that there is a monopoly in the match industry, and that we should


all like to see greater competition, and if it is also the case that this duty on mechanical lighters was imposed to prevent or at least to restrain competition with matches by mechanical lighters, is there not at least a serious argument in these circumstances, and unless and until the Government take some other action of which we have no knowledge at present, for reconsidering whether we really wish to continue the tax on mechanical lighters at all?
I hope, therefore, that the Financial Secretary will tell us whether the Government, who may have seen the Commission's Report before we did but who may, nevertheless, not have seen it before taking their decisions on the Budget, have now reconsidered this duty in the light of the Report of the Commission, and whether they are going to take any other action which may make this duty unnecessary; or whether they do not propose to take any action at all. In the light of this very authoritative Report from a Commission who have clearly rooted out these facts very thoroughly over a long period of time, and given a clear and convincing and unanimous Report which makes it quite clear that the present situation in the match industry is thoroughly undesirable from the point of view of the consumers and of the national interest, I can hardly believe that the Government intend to take no action at all.
I do hope, therefore, that either the Financial Secretary or the President of the Board of Trade will give us their view on whether or not this duty should be continued. I feel the Committee is being asked by this Clause to continue a form of indirect but nevertheless definite and special protection, by means of an import duty, for the present match monopoly. I have very grave doubts whether the Committee ought to do that, and, therefore, if we cannot be given any light or guidance on the Government's intentions my hon. Friends may feel that they ought to divide against this Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: It is a fact revealed in the Monopolies Commission's Report on the match industry that for seven years from 1921 to 1928 there were no duties on lighters. The duty was abolished in 1921 and reimposed in 1928. It is obvious that this country and its financial resources were able to survive

the period during which there were no duties on lighters whatsoever. In 1928 the duty on lighters was reimposed, since when the duty has increased by 12 times. At the same time as the duty on lighters was increased twelvefold the duty on matches was increased by only three and a half times.
It seems quite obvious that mechanical lighters are subjected to a far higher degree of taxation than has been imposed upon matches. That, in my view, and, I think, probably in the view of many of my hon. Friends, is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, particularly in the light of the information that has now been made available to the country of the very favourable position, from the point of view of match manufacturers, in which the match industry finds itself.
The other unsatisfactory feature of the present duty as applied to lighters is that the duty charged on lighters is heavy, and it is a flat rate per lighter. The duty being a flat rate means that the duty is the same quite regardless of quality and price, the effect of which, as pointed out in the Commission's Report, is that the production of cheap, simple lighters of the wartime Utility type has been discouraged to the disadvantage of the public as a whole, and to the disadvantage of cigarette smokers and pipe smokers who in other respects make a very substantial contribution to the revenue. In respect of lighters they are subjected to what is a most unfair burden, a burden which may not have been exposed to the extent that it has been but for the publication of the Monopolies Commission's Report on the match industry.
I do hope that we may have some explanation from the Financial Secretary about his intentions in the matter, because those of us who are in the habit of using mechanical lighters and who make a substantial contribution to the Treasury through imposts on the tobacco we smoke in cigarettes and pipes ought to receive some consideration now. I do hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to give us some information which will deter hon. Members on this side from voting against the inclusion of this Clause.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I am prepared to concede that when the Budget was framed the Chancellor was not aware of what was in the Report on matches. I am prepared to concede that this was looked at


purely as a revenue matter. It may be that the Treasury were justified, but in fairness to the public they must now appreciate that since these revelations have burst upon the country a new situation has arisen. The public are rightly concerned. They are incensed by the feeling that they have been victimised by the match makers for years. There is a great deal of feeling on both sides. I hoped that it would have been shared by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
If this Motion was not approved the Government would be given an opportunity to reconsider the whole position in the light of that Report. We do not put this forward as a contentious argument intended to embarrass the Government. The revenue aspects of this matter have been superseded by other aspects in which the public interest is concerned.

Mr. Dalton: We want to strengthen the hands of the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Fletcher: That is so. We want the matter looked at in the light of the alarming revelations of the Monopolies Commission. We hope that the Government will give an assurance either that the Clause will be withdrawn or that the whole matter will be inquired into afresh in the light of that Report.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that the proposals in this Clause raise the issue of the recent Report of the Monopolies Commission about which on an appropriate occasion my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will no doubt have something to say. This Clause simply reduces the duties payable not on complete lighters but on certain parts of them. I explained earlier that for some years it was thought necessary to impose on all parts of lighters the same rate of duty as that which would fall on a complete lighter. That was to prevent evasion of the import duty by the importation of parts of a lighter with subsequent assembly in this country.
The Clause modifies the position to a certain extent. It provides that the body or such main part of a lighter as may be prescribed shall continue to be subject to the provision and to carry with it the full rate of duty, but that other parts, the ordinary small parts of a lighter needed for replacement purposes, shall

not be chargeable with duty as if they were complete lighters but shall be subject only to the 10 per cent. ad valorem duty to which they were subject as a result of the Import Duties Act, 1932.
Perhaps I should explain why we think this is desirable. Protection against evasion by the importation of parts is maintained by providing that the body of the lighter, without which one cannot assemble one, shall still carry the full rate of duty plus such other parts as it might be necessary to prescribe from time to time, but by exempting from this rate of duty, though leaving them still subject to the 10 per cent., the spare parts needed for repairs and maintenance. They include those wheels which the Committee discussed earlier.
It was thought that in the interests of international trade, especially trade with Switzerland, whence many of these lighters are imported, a system under which the smallest spare part suffered the full rate of duty was unfair and involved an excessive interference with international trade. It meant that if anybody imported one of these lighters a spare part was unobtainable save on payment of duty equivalent to the duty on the whole lighter. In view of the desirability of removing unnecessary obstructions to international trade, and to European trade in particular, and as it is not now necessary for the purpose of preventing evasion, I suggest to the Committee that it is sensible now to impose on these spare parts only the small rate of duty due under the Import Duties Act.
7.15 p.m.
That is the purpose and effect of the Clause. To some extent I had to foreshadow it in discussing the Amendment, since the subsection to which the Amendment related would have been even more incomprehensible without some reference to the general effect of the Clause on a whole. That is the effect. This is not a very great matter. The revenue involved is trifling, but it is as a small contribution to the freeing of trade retrictions that the proposal is presented.

Mr. Jay: If we approve the Clause will there still remain a heavy Customs duty on imported mechanical lighters? Will that still be the case?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is the case if the Committee approve the Clause but,


subject to what may be said to the contrary, my reading of the position is that if the Committee decided that the Clause should not stand part of the Bill, Section 6 of the Finance Act, 1928, would still operate to impose the duty over the whole of the spares as well as on whole lighters.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(REDUCTION OF MECHANICALLY PROPELLED VEHICLES DUTY IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN MOTOR-CYCLE COMBINATIONS.)

Mr. Anthony Crosland: I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, to leave out from "bicycles," to "from," in line 25.
Perhaps it would be convenient, Sir Charles, to discuss at the same time the Amendment in line 28, to leave out from "£1 5s. 0d.," to the end of the line.
The precedent has already been established that, as far as possible, people should be chosen to speak on particular Clauses because they are consumers on a very large scale of the item referred to. Therefore, we had my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Glanville) speaking on Clause 1. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) who, I am sorry to say, suffers from a nervous disability which causes him to move the wheel of his mechanical lighter almost without ceasing, spoke on the last Clause.
We searched around when we came to Clause 4 for someone who had spent almost the whole of his time in a sidecar drawn by an electrically propelled vehicle. We were unable to find someone, and so I have to act as a substitute. The object of the Clause and of the Amendment can be simply explained. The Clause refers to the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, which is a consolidating Measure dealing with almost all motor vehicle duties. Section 2 of that Act deals with the duty on certain vehicles not exceeding 8 cwt. in weight unladen. Section 2 (2) imposes an additional duty beyond what the motor-cycle itself bears on any bicycle which is used for drawing a trailer or sidecar.
The effect of the bicycle being used not merely by itself but to draw a sidecar or trailer is to attract a full duty which was

set in the Act at £1 5s. It is now proposed in this Bill that the additional duty of £1 5s. should be reduced to 10s., but not over the whole range of vehicles which bear the £1 5s. additional duty under the 1949 Act. The reduction to 10s. applies only to electrically propelled bicycles and bicycles of which the cylinder capacity of the engine does not exceed 250 cubic centimetres.
The Amendment seeks to extend this concession, this reduction from £1 5s. to 10s., beyond that narrow sphere to all bicycles to which the original Section 2 (2) of the 1949 Act applied.
The Financial Secretary referred briefly to this Clause in the course of his Second Reading speech on the Finance Bill, a speech which has been much quoted this afternoon. He said:
Clause 4 makes a small reduction in the small duty payable where sidecars are attached to lower or medium-sized motor bicycles.
His only explanation for the Clause is contained in the words:
That is a small contribution to road safety. I understand that it is safer to travel in a sidecar than on a pillion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1953; Vol. 515, c. 584.]
So the only reason that we have been given why the concession which this Clause grants is restricted to this small category of two types of bicycle is that it has something to do with road safety.
We are moving this Amendment on these quite simple grounds. If, in fact, it is so much safer to ride in a sidecar than on a pillion, which is what the Financial Secretary alleges—and he may well be right—then surely there is an argument for applying this tax concession not merely to these very small and light-powered bicycles but to the whole range of bicycles. Most motor-cycles which draw sidecars or trailers are not the ones which are referred to in this Clause, in that they are not electrically propelled and not of a cubic capacity of 250 or under. Most of those which have a sidecar or trailer belong to the 500 c.c. or 750 c.c. classes.
It is the case that only a very small proportion of motor cycle combinations are affected by this concession—that is only the vary rare cases where a sidecar is pulled along by an electrical vehicle or a small bicycle of 250 c.c. or under. It would be interesting to know from the Financial Secretary what proportion of


motor-cycle combinations are likely to be affected by the concession, but whatever it may be, it will be evident to those pedestrians who observe sidecar combinations that only a small proportion will be affected.
If that is so, it is difficult to understand the motive behind the Clause. It is not at all clear why a rider in a sidecar drawn by an electrically-propelled vehicle is safer than a rider in a sidecar drawn by a non-electrically-propelled vehicle of over 250 c.c. It is not clear why a rider in a sidecar drawn by a non-electrically-propelled bicycle of 250 c.c. or under is safer, or, for that matter less safe, than one drawn by a non-electrically-propelled bicycle of 500 c.c. or 750 c.c.
To the layman who is not an expert in road safety techniques it seems absurd, if the argument is derived from road safety, merely to pick out this very small class of sidecar combinations for this concession and not to extend it to the great majority of sidecar combinations which, at the moment, fall outside the concession. We wish to extend the concession. We wish to bring the extra duty of 25s. down to 10s. for all those classes of combinations to which the 25s. extra duty now applies.
If hon. Members have with them a copy of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, an admirable consolidating Measure which reflects nothing but great credit on my right hon. Friends who were in the Administration at that time and repays a good deal of study, they will find that a large part of it is taken up with hackney coaches used as tramcars. It is rather hard to believe that, even in 1949, there were many of those on the road. Now that the present Administration has forced the population into greater privations and, by denationalisation, road transport is thrown into confusion, it may be that a great number of these splendid but rusty vehicles are being drawn out of their sheds.
The first Schedule of that Act states that the additional 25s. duty—that is, before this Finance Bill is passed—applies to four categories. The concession made in Clause 4 of the present Bill applies only to three, namely 1 (a), 1 (b) and 2 of the Act. The object of this Amendment is to apply it to 1 (c) of the First Schedule of the Act, to which at present it does not

apply. The whole point of the Amendment is that this category which we wish to include, and which is at present excluded, is not just 25 per cent. of the total combinations affected. If one's observations mean anything at all it is by far the greater proportion of all motorcycle combinations on the road.
So we are seeking to turn a very small concession to a very small sub-category of motor-cycle combinations into a general concession to the great majority of combinations, on the simple grounds that if the road safety argument applies to electrically-propelled and non-electrically-propelled 250 c.c. vehicles it must surely apply to the greater number of combinations on the road.

Mr. Mitchison: I add my plea to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland). I was very puzzled when I read the Budget debate and observed that this concession was made for the sake of safety. I could not understand, and I still do not understand, why, in its limited form, it is supposed to be a contribution to road safety. Since the Financial Secretary has given up pillion riding and taken to the trailer or sidecar, it is certainly much safer not only for him but for other people on the road. As everybody in this Committee knows, and as the figures more than justify, the problem of road safety is very serious indeed. We are discussing what is no doubt a very substantial sum of money, but in comparison with any improvement we can make by way of road safety it is not as large as all that.
It is proposed at present to apply this concession to what are conveniently called light and medium cycles to which a trailer or sidecar can be attached. Presumably the reason is that the passenger, whether the Financial Secretary or somebody even more superficially attractive, might otherwise ride on the pillion. Nobody would conceivably disagree with that contention. But what is the reason for limiting the concession to light and medium motor-cycles?
I suppose that it will be said that we want to encourage people to go on light and medium motor-cycles rather than on heavy motor-cycles. If that is so, then that impeccable sense of logic which the Financial Secretary so frequently displays


would indicate to him at once that that cock will not fight, because that would apply equally to the cycle without a trailer or sidecar. So far as I can see, it would be quite illogical to say that the way to encourage people to have a light or medium motor-cycle is to do it by way of changing the tax on a trailer or sidecar. The reason for the reduction is surely to encourage people not to go on pillions but to use a trailer or a sidecar, and the purpose is to make it easier for them to do so.
7.30 p.m.
The particular kind of motor-cycle which is the greatest danger is the large and powerful motor-cycle which we see racing along the road. We have all seen plenty of them, many carrying someone on the back. I appreciate the need occasionally to draw a line; nobody particularly likes to draw a line to taxation matters at a fixed point so that a machine of 240 c.c. capacity pays one tax and a machine of 260 c.c. capacity pays another, but the reason is occasionally appreciated; but there is no possible reason for drawing a line of that sort in this case.
I appeal to the Financial Secretary and hon. Members opposite to have a heart in this matter. They are quite right in trying to do what they can for safety's sake, but there is an equally strong argument for doing it with larger motorcycles for safety's sake. Indeed, I should have thought there was a stronger argument. If there is any doubt in a matter of this kind, where people's lives and safety on the road are concerned, surely the Government should err on the side of giving a little too much.
I understand that even in the Treasury and among Treasury Ministers there are hearts. It would perhaps not be out of place for me to add my plea by pointing out that it is about time that the Financial Secretary made concessions. A number of arguments have been put to him. This argument has a human element behind it which, I feel, will at once appeal to him. In the interests, therefore, of road safety and, indeed, of the Financial Secretary's own journeys, whether on a pillion or in a trailer, or even as a humble pedestrian down Whitehall, I urge him to extend this concession to all types of motorcycle.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: I shall detain the Committee for only a few moments. I have been exercising my mind to ascertain why it should be safer to have a sidecar attached to a small motor-cycle than to have one attached to a more powerful motor-cycle. The only reason I can find is that, with a small power of a 250 c.c. motor-cycle, it is almost impossible to get any speed out of it at all when it has a sidecar attached, so that if a man has a sidecar on so small a machine he is bound to proceed at a very modest pace.
My own experience of motor-cycles goes back to before the war so that I cannot hope to compete with the more recent experience of the Financial Secretary, but if my recollection is correct it is most undesirable, on mechanical grounds, for sidecars to be fitted to such small machines. In these times, with the cost of living mounting and the general difficulty of working-class people who have this class of motor-cycle, it is wrong that the Financial Secretary should deceive them and, by reducing the tax from 25s. to 10s., persuade them to have a sidecar fitted and, in that way, wear out the engines of their motor-cycles more rapidly.
It is most unwise to put a sidecar on so small a machine. If the Financial Secretary will not go the whole way and accept the Amendment, as he should, will he not agree on Report stage to put a reasonable maximum to this concession? I suggest a maximum of at least 500 c.c, which, I believe, in the trade is thought to be the usual strength to carry a sidecar without too much strain on the driver, the vehicle or the travelling public.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It seems conventional in the debate on this Amendment to rely to some extent on personal experience, as the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) said. In that context, only the strictest of military discipline ever got me on to one of these machines and only such discipline would ever get me on to one again.

Mr. Mitchison: Was the hon. Gentleman on a pillion?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In those days Army orders were that only full colonels and above could ride on a pillion, and I did not hold that rank.
The point has been made about why the reduction in the rate of duty in respect of the sidecar is restricted to sidecars attached to lighter types of motorcycle—that is, those up to 250 c.c. Let me deal in detail with the points which hon. Members opposite have made. In the first place, the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South asked whether there were many sidecars on the roads to which this reduction would apply. The answer is that there are very few. As far as we can estimate, there are no more than about 1,200. That is one of the reasons why we desire to effect this change in the law. As the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said, there is a road safety element here. I made some reference to it on Second Reading. It is a fact that in practice very few of the lighter motorcycles have sidecars.
When one looks at the relative figures for duty, it may well seem that the duty itself is at any rate a factor in that situation. It is because so few of these lighter motor-cycles are used with sidecars that it seemed to us desirable to give some encouragement, or to remove a deterrent if hon. Members prefer that phrase, to their use.
The reason why the figure of 250 c.c. is selected as the terminus ad quern is that it is the figure at which the higher rate of duty on the motor-cycle itself comes into operation. Perhaps I may outline the present position. The really light motor-cycles, up to 150 c.c, each pay 17s. 6d., although in such cases the payment for the sidecar has been 25s.— and that has some relevance to the argument. For duty purposes the sidecar has been taxed more heavily than the motorcycle itself. Between 150 and 250 c.c, the duty on the motor-cycle itself is £1 17s. 6d. It is only just more than the old rate of duty on the sidecar. At 250 c.c, when we are coming into the heavier class of machine, the rate of duty on the motor-cycle goes up to £3 15s., and it is in that zone of the heavier machine that the greater number of sidecars are used.
I agree that to some extent this is a matter on which hon. Members will form their personal opinions, but it seems to us that if there be a deterrent effect to the use of sidecars from the rate of duty, it

falls most heavily in the case of the smaller, lighter and therefore, cheaper motor-cycle, where the rate of duty on the machine itself is less and where, generally speaking, the person operating it is either a poorer person or is prepared to spend less on his motor-cycling activities. In other words, it seems to us that the deterrent effect of the duty must be heavier in the case of those lighter machines where the general expenditure is less.

Mr. Mulley: In fixing this figure, did the Financial Secretary take some account of the mechanical capacity of the motor-cycle? If he discusses the matter in detail with the trade, they will tell him that the reason why there are so few sidecars attached to motor-cycles in this category is because the mechanical driving power of the small engine is not sufficient. Perhaps I may make a parallel which is not unfair.
If he were to seek to count the number of eight horse-power cars propelling caravans, he would find that they were very few. But that is not a question of the deterrent of the duty; it is simply because an eight horse-power car is not capable, with any degree of comfort or consideration for the engine, of performing that task. The main reason why these lighter motor-cycles do not have sidecars attached is the capacity of the engine; it is not a question of duty. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a contribution to safety, he should raise the maximum considerably.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that there is much difference in point of view between the hon. Member and myself. Clearly, the lower the horse power of the machine the more effort is required to haul the additional load of the sidecar. I do not think that we need waste the time of the Committee in arguing that point. It is a fact that about 1,200 people operate sidecars with these lighter machines and, therefore, it is not mechanically impossible to do so.
The argument which I was trying to suggest to the Committee is that when we are within the zone of the cheaper motorcycle, with its low rate of duty, the rate of duty on the sidecar is at present only a few shillings less than the duty on the motor-bicycle itself and this is likely to have a bigger effect than when we are dealing


with the larger and more expensive motor-cycle, which has cost the person concerned a substantially greater sum and where the rate of duty which he has to pay on the motor-bicycle is proportionately larger. It is a common experience that a few shillings means much more lower down the economic scale than it does higher up.

Mr. Richard Adams: Would the Financial Secretary apply that argument to the car tax which now operates?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should be out of order if I did so on this issue. Here we are concerned with the explanation of this concession. I do not want to make heavy weather of it. It seems to us that this is the field in which the encouragement can best be given in the first place because it is, as hon. Members will recollect from the figures I used, the field in which these machines are used much less frequently with sidecars than at the higher level.
We think that this is an appropriate place at which to begin and on which to judge the effect. Therefore, for this year at any rate, this is a reasonable beginning. I can undertake that we will watch the position and watch in particular whether there is an effect in this sphere of the sort which we would like to see, and we will consider in the light of that whether perhaps next year a move in the direction which the hon. Member suggests may not be warranted.
I do not think this is more than an experimental concession. I think that the sensible thing is to put it into operation and judge by the results. One further factor is perhaps material from the point of view of fairness. The total duty on the heavy motor-cycle and sidecar together comes to £5. That is the same rate of duty as is charged on mechanically propelled tricycles, and there is something to be said for keeping the rate of duty of these two types of machine in line.

Mr. Charles Pannell: I think that the explanation of the Financial Secretary in this matter—and he has himself pleaded not guilty to being a motor cyclist—springs from that degree of perversity and muddle-headedness which strikes the Treasury whenever they go into

technical matters. The same sort of consideration has been given to this matter as was given to Clause 13 of a previous Finance Bill, relating to the tax on electrical vehicles. I have always objected to the bedevilling of design, the distortion of design, and the distortion of the use of vehicles of any sort by taxation.
7.45 p.m.
The Minister of Transport is at present considering the wisdom of restoring the 30 miles per hour speed limit to heavy vehicles. The argument on which the right hon. Gentleman will rely is that with the speed limit as it is now there is a tendency to overload lighter vehicles. This is exactly the same idea. We are giving a concession which means the overloading of the lighter motor-cycle. I argue, quite apart from the merits of the Amendment, that the type of motor-cycle with which we are dealing is not meant for the job of running a sidecar. We ought not to give encouragement for light motor-cycles to have sidecars attached to them at all.
Everyone who is connected with engineering, or who has driven a motor-cycle and sidecar knows that the right thing is to have a heavy motor-cycle. It is meant for the job and one has more control over it. In this case, the Government come along with their usual muddle-headedness that characterises the Treasury when discussing technical matters. I have had difficulty in the past in arguing technical matters with the Treasury. What we really want is a uniform tax throughout the whole range and not to encourage people to get on old bikes or to buy light bikes, to the detriment of other people on the road. That is an anti-social trend in taxation.
I regret that there is not more effective liaison between the Treasury and the Ministry of Transport on this matter so that we may get advice that this is not the right way to do the job. I hope that the Treasury will think about this matter again or at least use the 12 months before the next Finance Bill comes up to consult informed engineering opinion on the matter.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(EXEMPTION FROM ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY OF CERTAIN AMATEUR SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENTS.)

Mr. Ellis Smith: I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, after "society," to insert "club."
Before we proceed to discuss this Amendment, may I make a submission to you, Mr. Bowles, with regard to procedure, and some suggestions with a view to facilitating the easy consideration of the matter which will be under discussion?
It would be better, in my view, if we could discuss the three Clauses relating to Entertainments Duty together, each of which is dependent upon the other. I know that the rules do not provide for that and, therefore, I do not intend to pursue that point, but will you, Mr. Bowles, consider this. I believe that by discussing this Clause we shall get the best results from everybody's point of view, and that it will assist the Chair if we have a wide discussion on this Clause. Let hon. Members who wish have a say and then, when we come to the Amendments on the other Clauses, I propose that you should then limit the discussion by saying that we have already had a wide discussion. In that way, I think that we should get better results. Will you consider that, Mr. Bowles, before I proceed?

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am only the Temporary Chairman and that the Chairman of Ways and Means should decide what to do. His proposal is that it would be for the benefit of the Committee if we proceeded as follows. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) should move his Amendment which might be considered together with the Amendment at the top of the next page in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)—Clause 5, page 4, line 4— and the one in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice)—Clause 5, page 4, line 10. The rest of the Amendments on that page are out of order. The main discussion I should think would come on the second Amendment on page 1358 in the name of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell)—Clause 6, page 4, line 24, leave out "cricket matches," and insert "All entertainment

which consists of games or other sport." These are the Chairman's views, and I am rather bound by them. We have two of a more distinct type, one relating to football and the other to boxing.

Mr. Smith: If this Clause is passed as it is worded in the Bill it will prevent us from dealing with our different problems later. I remember very clearly what took place in our last Finance Bill debate on the subject. To be sure about what I am saying I have looked up the debate. First of all, we had a very wide discussion to dispose of the subject and then we took the Amendments which the Chair decided to call. I suggest that it will be far better if we have that procedure, taking the wide discussion now, for then everyone will have his say and there will be complete satisfaction. Afterwards, we can move our Amendments but the Chair will limit discussion on them to what it considers is within reason in relation to time.

The Temporary Chairman: My first difficulty is, obviously, a personal, representative one. I cannot really go back on what the Chairman has told me to insist on the Committee doing. I do not know at what time the right hon. Gentleman is resuming the Chair, but perhaps the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South will start and I will leave the Chair at eight o'clock and make it my business to see the Chairman of Ways and Means about this. I am advised that he has already considered it. Perhaps it would be as well if he came back and heard the hon. Gentleman's submission. I was not present at the conference this morning with the Chairman of Ways and Means, but he apparently decided that the main, wide discussion should take place on the second Amendment on page 1358.

Mr. W. Nally: With great respect to the Chairman of Ways and Means and to you, Mr. Bowles, and your wide knowledge of the procedure of the House, which I would not venture to dispute, you are in the Chair. It is perfectly proper for the Chairman of Ways and Means to give you advice, but the Chairman of Ways and Means, for whom I have the highest regard, is surely not entitled to say that if you are face to face with the business-like proposition put to you by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) the matter is not for your decision.


If it is a decision for the Chairman of Ways and Means, obviously we must have the Chairman of Ways and means here.

The Temporary Chairman: The Chairman of Ways and Means has been in the Chair for at least two and a half hours non-stop this afternoon and has considered the matter. When I am in the Chair my duty is, first, to obey his selection or non-selection of Amendments and, secondly, to keep the debate relevant to the Amendments before the Committee. Beyond that, my powers are limited.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I appreciate that the Chairman of Ways and Means has decided that the main debate should come on the second Amendment to the next Clause, and we cannot, and would not, and do not, raise any objection to that, Mr. Bowles. What my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) has in mind is that if certain arguments are put forward on this Clause that should not prevent the same arguments being put forward on the next Clause.
In one way this Clause is a narrow one, for it deals almost entirely with amateur sport, and, therefore, in a sense we can isolate it from the larger debate which will take place on the next Clause. At the same time, it is obvious that the two interlock. In view of that, will it be in order to continue, without being charged with repetition, the same kind of argument on the next Clause as I understand will undoubtedly be put forward by my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends of mine and perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite on the Amendments to this Clause?

The Temporary Chairman: There is no rule against repetition. There is only a rule against tedious repetition. In those circumstances, as the position is that we have a different Chairman every hour, I expect the Committee will be able to look after itself quite well.

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order, Mr. Bowles. You mentioned the Amendment in Clause 5, page 4, line 10, which seeks to insert certain words after "capacity." I wish to safeguard the position. There are four Amendments which hang together and one would like to discuss them together, perhaps with a manuscript Amendment if the Chairman at the moment saw fit to accept it.

The Temporary Chairman: The Amendment selected by the Chair is in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice), which will cover the others, and, therefore, the discussion will be as wide as the hon. and learned Gentleman desires.

Mr. Ellis Smith: May I make it clear, Mr. Bowles, that I am making no complaint about, or casting any reflection in any way upon what you have said. It is unfortunate, because the Clauses are interdependent, and we are put in great difficulty. I shall confine my observations within very narrow limits, which, I understand, is the Chair's desire, but if the Chair suggests that I should do that then it is only right that everyone else should do it.

The Temporary Chairman: I am advised that it is the desire of the Chairman of Ways and Means that the main debate shall be on the next Clause. Hon. Members will thus have a very wide debate followed by the Amendments dealing with football and boxing.

Mr. Smith: That has made it clear, Mr. Bowles. Now we know where we are.
The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that all clubs, no matter with what sport they are concerned, shall have the same right in the matter of taxation as amateur clubs have. We should have liked to delete a number of words in order to be consistent, but the Chair has decided not to call the Amendments. We are not complaining, but it has added to the difficulties. It is the result of the draftsman, whoever he was, deciding upon the form of words which appears here and introducing it into the Finance Bill in this way. In spite of my very great regard for the draftsmen, having had some experience with them, I must say that whoever has been responsible for this has not done it in a way that enables the Committee to give the whole problem involved the consideration that it should have done.
There is no doubt that this will not be the end of the matter. It will be brought up next time in the same way because great feeling is developing in the country about it. As sure as I am standing here, it will come up again in


an even bigger way still when we discuss the next Finance Bill. I hope that the draftsmen will in future prepare the Clause so that we can discuss the matter in a way which everyone will understand. For the time being, I content myself with moving my Amendment.

8.0 p.m.

Miss Elaine Burton: I desire to support the Amendment. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee unduly on this Amendment. We all want to get on to the wider subject. I agree entirely with what has been said, and I hope that the Government will be able to insert the word "club" into the Clause.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): I share the desire of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) to get on with the Bill, and I am confident that as our proceedings advance the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South will find plenty of scope for deploying the main argument on this matter. At the moment, he is suggesting that the word "club" should be inserted in this Clause. The object of the Clause is to cover clubs. Obviously, it is entirely designed to help amateur clubs, and I am advised that the words
society, institution or committee …
include clubs. Therefore, the addition of the word "club" would not be necessary.

Mr. Ellis Smith: rose—

Mr. Maudling: I know what the hon. Gentleman wants to say and if he will allow me I will answer it. What he would like to say is that if this word does not make any difference and is not necessary why not insert it in the Bill. The answer is that the wording used is taken from a Section of the Finance Act of 1946, which uses the same words. It did not use the word "club" but it has always been interpreted as covering clubs, and if we were to use the word "club" it might suggest a different intention on the part of Parliament in the two cases, whereas, in both cases, the wording was intended to cover clubs.

Mr. Smith: We want to safeguard our position and to get an understanding about is so that the ground will not be cut from under our feet when we come to other Clauses. I am not a legal man, but I have learned that the courts have always said that what matters is not the intention of the Minister but what is in the Act. Therefore, the Economic Secretary has the benefit of legal advice which we have not got, and I want to be assured on this point so that when we come to deal with professional clubs later we can be sure that these words also apply to clubs.

Mr. Maudling: I can assure the hon. Member that the word "society" includes clubs.

Mr. Nally: The Economic Secretary is relying on the fact that these words were included in the 1946 Act. But in 1946 we had a very different situation. We had been at peace for only 12 months, and in my industrial constituency there were only a few clubs run with voluntary labour. The position is vastly different now, because it has been greatly extended since that time. From what the Economic Secretary says, it is quite clear that there is no objection at all to inserting "club." The word "club," particularly north of the Trent, has a connotation not in the legal sense but in the ordinary sense which the word "society" has not got. Therefore, will it do any harm to insert the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend?
There is no reason at all why the Economic Secretary should not accept this Amendment. We accept his assurance that the word "society" also means clubs but in Lancashire, Yorkshire, Cheshire and a whole lot of places north of the Trent we would prefer to see "society, club" and I invite the Economic Secretary to accept that Amendment and so save a lot of trouble. He said there was no legal objection to it. Why not insert it?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I am bound to say for once in a while I agree with the Government spokesman. It seems to me that the Minister makes a perfectly valid point when he says that we must have regard to the actual words used by Parliament and not the intention, and that it is well to use the same words in a Clause as were


used formerly when they are meant to be the same thing. It might have been a good idea to put in the word "club" in the 1946 Finance Act, or it might not have been. It does not matter now, but if the Clause, in 1946, covered societies and clubs and we mean this Clause to cover societies and clubs, then we would only be introducing an element of confusion if we were to express that intention differently today from the way that Parliament expressed it the last time.

Mr. Nally: I am sure there are a good many clubs in Nelson and Colne. Is the hon. Member now asking Labour clubs in Colne and in Nelson to use the word "society"? Is that the same thing as a club, and if the hon. Gentleman thinks so would he conduct an inquiry among these clubs to find out whether they agree with him?

Mr. S. Silverman: I am sure that the many clubs in my constituency will continue, and will prefer to be called clubs. They will never call themselves societies, but I think they are perfecty satisfied that they are covered by the 1946 Act and that they will be covered by this Clause in the same circumstances.

Mr. Barnett Janner: I would not have intervened in this debate but for the fact that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) raised a point about interpretation. There is a possibility of a misunderstanding, because a subsequent interpretation might be quite different from what was intended by the Minister in Committee here. In view of the fact that the Minister was so categorical about the term "society" including club, I would ask him, with his legal adviser, to consider the matter carefully between now and the Report stage to see where there is any doubt at all about it, so that if something is needed to cover the word "club" it could be inserted at a later stage. This is extremely important, because one does not want litigation over these matters because of interpretation that might be entirely different from what was in the mind of the Minister.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I realise that the Committee does not want to waste much time on this question because we have an extremely interesting debate to come, but the Economic Secretary did mention the Finance Act, 1946, and as one of the

Ministers who helped to put the criticised words into that Act I should like to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). The wording which was there used has worked extremely well in the six or seven years which have elapsed since. I agree entirely with what the Economic Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) have said to reassure my hon. Friend. If there should be any doubt about the inclusion of the word "club" perhaps between now and next year the hon. Gentleman will look into, and, if necessary, take the necessary steps to regularise the matter.

Mr. Nally: Why not now?

Mr. Maudling: I have tried to explain to the Committee that the wording in the 1946 Act has been interpreted consistently for the last seven years to include the word "club," and that that is the intention of this Clause. If any doubt should arise certainly I will re-examine the position, but I am quite certain that there is no doubt about it, having received the best legal advice that there is about it.

Mr. Ellis Smith: In view of the advice which I have received from the Economic Secretary, from my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Mulley: I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, at the end, to insert:
Provided that referees, umpires or judges shall be deemed not to participate in any game, race or other sport.
This again is a drafting matter, but I think it has some substance, because it might well be that because of a certain interpretation the intentions of the Government will be entirely frustrated. It is a matter of general knowledge that in almost every case in Association football some payment—and I am bound to add that in most cases it is very small —is made to the referee who officiates at a game. If it were held subsequently in the courts that a referee was a participant in the game, very few Association football clubs, if any, would benefit by the concession that is intended. In


the same way I am informed that the umpires at Wimbledon receive payment and, therefore, if the umpire was held to be a participant in the game, it would mean that the relief intended for the Wimbledon lawn tennis tournament would not be available.
It is a matter of argument as to whether or not a referee is a participant in the game but, before I discuss that, I want to make it clear that the word "judges" is not intended to include Her Majesty's learned judges who sit in courts of law, although I am informed that sometimes the proceedings of a court tend to follow rules that are not dissimilar to some games and in some cases certain entertainment ensues. I say that to avoid any doubt there may be in the minds of hon. Members because I do not wish to be controversial. I would not, however, wish to prejudice the right of any hon. and learned Gentleman who wished to tell us some entertaining stories about judges.
The question of the participation of the referee might be best compared, Mr. Hopkin Morris, with your function in our debates. It is quite clear, and I think many of my hon. Friends regret it, that the Chair rarely participates in our debates, but it would be incorrect to assume that the Chairman played no part in them.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): It looks as though it will be necessary for the Chairman to take part soon.

Mr. Mulley: That was not exactly the line of my argument. The function of a referee is such that the game could not take place without his participation. Therefore, in order to give effect to what I am sure are the intentions of the Government, these words should be inserted. While I do not wish to bring you again into the discussion, Mr. Hopkin Morris, you will have noticed that our Amendment has the backing of two hon. Members who serve the Committee from time to time with distinction as Temporary Chairmen, and I am sure that this consideration will also weigh with the Government.
Finally, there is the question of the unpopularity of the referee. If it should happen that because the referee was paid the club had to pay Entertainments Duty

as well, it would make the position of the referee very difficult. From time to time when witnessing Soccer matches I have been interested in the references that are made to the spectacles of referees. For a long time I did not appreciate the full subtlety of that, but when I learned that a referee is barred from refereeing if he needs to wear spectacles, I realised that the comments had great force behind them.
It is perhaps a little wide of this Amendment, but I have often wondered if, in formulating the National Health charges there ought not to have been some special concession to exempt referees from them. I shall not elaborate that point, but the question is sufficiently serious for the Economic Secretary to assure us that, if he will not accept the Amendment, there can be no question of any club in the future being ruled out of the concession which the Government want to make simply because a payment is made to a referee or some other official who is there to control the proceedings.

Mr. George Wigg: I hope that the Government will give due consideration to the comments of my hon. Friend, but I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment in its present form. Take the case of a game of football between two amateur teams in which there is a referee and two linesmen. If the Amendment were accepted that game would not qualify because the linesmen are paid. Similarly in the case of races. It will be all right if the judge is paid, but what will happen if the starter is paid? The idea behind this Amendment is sound and the Government would be well advised to assure the Committee that the intention of my hon. Friend is met by the existing form of words or will be met by a form of words which the Government will put down after careful consideration, but these words should not be accepted.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Mandling: There is no doubt that the intentions of both sides of the Committee are the same, namely, that referees, judges, umpires and so on shall be excluded. If, however, we seek to do that, as the Amendment does, by enumerating certain categories to be excluded, we shall fall into the difficulty pointed out by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), that


linesmen, and so on, are ruled out. That was why we decided to act by definition, by the question of whether people participate in a game. I suggest to the Committee that it is fairly clear who participates and who does not.
For example, the object of a game of football is to kick a ball into the goal and the referee cannot do that. [An HON. MEMBER: "You do not know."] Nor can the referee be a member of either team in the game although he is sometimes accused of partiality. It is quite clear that any official of this kind who, by his position, is neither a member of a competing team nor able to participate in the game which, in the case of football, is to propel the ball or, in the case of boxing, to punch an opponent, cannot be a participant and is therefore excluded. It is better to exclude the people concerned in this way by general definition than to try to enumerate them. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that this is the intention of the Government, and that we are convinced that the words in the Bill will cover the point he has in mind.

Mr. Mitchison: I ask the Economic Secretary to have another look at this because I am not certain that it is quite as clear as he has been advised it is and as he thinks it is. I am not referring to cases of involuntary participation by the referee because, after all, this Bill does not apply to the Argentine, but I feel some doubt as to whether it is clear that in the case of referees who are paid it does not make a difference.
It is true that the referee does not play the game of football. It is equally true that even outside the Argentine there could be no game of football without a judge, umpire or referee of some sort. I should have thought it was a matter about which one ought to be certain and it could do no harm to make sure. So far as I know, there is no precedent for this and even in the subsection we are coming to there are questions in a different field which are not wholly dissimilar, the question of amateur entertainment and so on.
In view of what he has said I do not ask the Economic Secretary to accept this Amendment though I appreciate what was said by my hon. Friend the Member

for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). He might, however, have another look at it in order to make sure that something is not put into the Bill by accident.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I, too, share the view of my hon. and learned Friend and of all of us on this side of the Committee. It would be a pity to exclude by enumeration and then find that by so doing we have made a muddle of this concession which we all value. I do, however, ask the Economic Secretary whether the Treasury have consulted the Law Officers and whether they have assured the Government that the wording in the subsection is watertight in the direction which, I am sure, both the hon. Gentleman and the rest of us desire.

Mr. Maudling: We have obtained the best legal advice and are convinced that the wording is watertight. I will, however, certainly reflect on what hon. and right hon. Members have said, because it is most important that there should not be room for doubt.

Mr. Mulley: We are obliged for the hon. Gentleman's assurance that as far as he knows, the matter is quite clear, but that he will have another look at it. It is rather different to the previous discussion and the precedent of the form of words that had been unchallenged for seven years. I believe that this is the first time that the word "participate" is being construed in exactly the form that in this case is required. In view of the assurance of the Economic Secretary that before the Report stage he will look at the question and, if necessary, introduce an Amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. I do not know whether this is the proper way to raise the point, but I have been in the House for a number of years and I do not think I ever remember an occasion when we had proceedings on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill without a Law Officer being present.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of order. It has nothing to do with me.

Mr. Nally: Further to that point of order—

The Deputy-Chairman: There cannot be any "Further to that point of Order." It is not a point of order at all.

Mr. Ellis Smith: In view of our agreement on procedure, I do not propose to move the Amendment in page 4, line 5, leave out subsection (2). We will retain our right to speak on later Amendments.

Mr. H. Rhodes: I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, after "capacity," to insert:
or as a conductor, or member of an orchestra taking part together with other persons in the entertainment.

The Deputy-Chairman: There is a manuscript Amendment to be discussed together with this Amendment.

Mr. Rhodes: By this Amendment we seek a more generous definition of an amateur performance than the one contained in Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1949, and in the Clause. We welcome the amendments in the Clause as far as they go, but we contend that the provisions do not go far enough to cover the need of amateur dramatic and operatic societies throughout the country.
This is a more important matter than may at first sight appear. The Committee know full well the interest that was taken in the matter last year and the number of Members who spoke on it, and hon. Members cannot have been unaware of the interest taken in it in every constituency during the last 12 months.
The definition in the 1949 Act of an amateur performance says:
For the purposes of this section an entertainment shall not be deemed to be an amateur one if any payment is made or reward given for the appearance of any of the performers whose words or actions constitute the entertainment or any part of it, or for any person's services in connection with the entertainment as instructor, producer, manager or conductor or in any advisory capacity.
The improvement which is set out in the Clause reads:
For the purposes of section ten of the Finance Act, 1949 (which exempts certain amateur theatrical and other entertainments from duty) an entertainment shall not be deemed not to be an amateur entertainment by reason only that any payment is made or reward given for the services of any person as instructor, producer, manager, or in any advisory capacity.
It will be obvious to the Committee that the amateur dramatic societies who

require the services of a paid conductor or paid orchestra are still deprived of these facilities.
The form of definition in the 1949 Act and in the Clause are the all-important factors. The definition determines the ease or difficulty that a society may have in obtaining exemption. We know that a society can, according to its constitution, claim exemption under one of the many forms laid down in various Acts, such as that contained in Section 12 of the Finance Act, 1916, which lays down that if the performance is purely educational and is attached to an institution such as a polytechnic, evening classes or something of that sort, exemption can be claimed on that account.
The other important form is in Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1946, which is partly educational and has as one of its conditions that the performance must be non-profit making. We know that that facility is granted to professionals as well as to amateurs, but it is not with that type of society or the one that I mentioned previously that I wish to deal: it is with that large number of societies which produce musical shows and need a paid conductor or a paid orchestra, or both.
Those societies exist in every constituency. They are working under almost impossible conditions owing to the strict limitations and definition and the consequential difficulty in obtaining exemption from tax. These societies come under the heading of societies, permanent bodies, with solely or partly charitable objects. They come under Section 6 (4) of the Finance Act, 1924, and this is the only form of exemption we know of. The working rules are contained in Notice 96 of the Customs and Excise Department.
Under the provisions of that Act the whole of the net proceeds must be devoted to charity and the net proceeds must exceed 20 per cent. of the gross takings. These societies are under a tremendous handicap. They have to think twice before putting on a musical show as they know full well they will have to work with whist drives, American teas and the rest to pay even the net amount they need in order to put the show on. I ask the Minister, is it revenue that prevents the Treasury from granting this very needed


and small request? I do not see how that can be so because the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said in a speech on this matter during the Report stage last year:
we are not perturbed by the financial implications of the proposal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 1122.]
He went on to say that the cost to the revenue if the whole of this duty was remitted or the obligation to it was remitted would be in the region of £10,000. We know he has made some concessions in this Finance Bill through amateur dramatic societies in that producers are now allowed and managers are now allowed under the definition of an amateur performance. So it must follow, if these concessions mean anything at all, that the amount with which we are concerned at present must be something less than £10,000 a year.
It was contended during the last Finance Bill debates that the cost to the Treasury in collecting this sum of something like £10,000 would be equal to the amount they received. Therefore, if they claim that they have done something for amateur societies and yet at the same time say that the amount is still somewhere round about £10,000 the concession must be meaningless to dramatic societies.
8.30 p.m.
Does the hon. Gentleman believe that amateur performances compete with professional performances? I do not think anyone could possibly argue that they do. I am certain that the production of an amateur performance in a small town or village does not do any harm whatever to the livelihood of a professional actor, a professional singer, or a professional musician. It may be argued that the advent of the local amateur dramatic society in the local theatre or local hall might do some damage to shows put on in adjacent towns, but we know that is not so.
We know very well that all over the country when an amateur society puts on a show in a local theatre it often has difficulty in recruiting an orchestra of sufficient quality, even among the professionals available, to enable it to put on the performance. In any case, if the hon. Gentleman does believe that amateur performances compete with professionals, the professional musicians have a very good organisation in the Musicians'

Union, which looks after their interests very well. Another safeguard which is quite conclusive is that the theatre managers associations insist that in all publicity for amateur societies the words "performance by amateurs" shall be billed.
Would the hon. Gentleman think that a paid orchestra might be the main part of the performance of a musical play? We must admit that the orchestra is a very important part of the performance put on by an amateur operatic society, but it is really an ancillary assistance. Those who perform in the orchestra are usually drawn from a wider field than those who constitute the society. Members of the society are local people who bring in their relatives. During the week of the performance there is no question that it is a town affair—I very nearly said "a family affair," which it is in many cases. It is a domestic effort. There is really no interest in the personalities of the people who comprise the orchestra. The only time they are mentioned or criticised is when the usual comment is made, that they are playing too loudly. That is as may be.
Does the Economic Secretary believe that there is no difference between payment to instrumentalists or to principal actors and singers taking part in a performance? There might be a little bit of substance in that point. Therefore, I plead with the Minister to think in terms of a concession. We are asking for indulgence in this matter, but above all else what we want is to exempt from duty the whole of the people who actually take part in plays or musical performance on the stage itself.
These people are interested in putting on a live performance. There is so much today which is against the putting on of a live performance. The Treasury has given assistance to the Arts Council for the furtherance of musical performances and shows of all description. Very often the accent has been in favour of London where the assistance is not needed so much as it is in the provinces. This is a matter which affects the social and cultural life of the people in the provinces more than it does the life of those who live in or visit London.
I earnestly plead with the Minister to find the means to excuse the payment of this small amount of money, a means


whereby scores of thousands of people may be relieved of a very heavy burden. If he does that he will give happiness not only to the members of the amateur societies but also to the communities in which they exist.

Mr. F. Blackburn: In this matter of amateur performances and Entertainments Duty successive Chancellors of the Exchequer must have taken as their motto festina lente, because this problem has been before the country for many years. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred to the fact that in 1916 the first concession was given in Section 12 of the Finance (New Duties) Act of that year. There was a benefit granted to societies of educational establishments.
During the years that have followed further concessions have been made. In 1949 the Chancellor clarified the matter considerably by setting out the entertainments which could be considered as amateur entertainments, but unfortunately in that Act the definition of the word "amateur" was drawn too closely. Consequently, last year we tried to have it extended. We did not succeed, although I think that the Financial Secretary gave us some hope that this year something might be done. Of course, something has been done and we are grateful for that.
However, I am certain that the Chancellor did not intend to discriminate against amateur operatic societies in favour of amateur dramatic societies. When I spoke in the debate on the Second Reading I made that point because it seems out of keeping that there should be this discrimination against one form of amateur entertainment. No doubt, the Chancellor's thoughts are on other things.
I am glad to see that the Chancellor is with us again, because there was a time when his spirit traversed higher paths than the sordid avenues of finance. It is not more than eight years ago when he was the Minister who was responsible for our educational, spiritual and cultural development. Now, we begin to be worried about his own cultural development, because it seems to me that his vocabularly is becoming limited to such words as "pound sterling," "dollars" and "convertibility."
I would suggest to the Chancellor that he should put the problem of convertibility away for six months, then take it out, look at it, dust it and put it back again, because, if he does that, it will give him some time to let his thoughts soar to higher things, and will allow him to consider the problems of the amateur operatic societies of Saffron Walden, Kingston-upon-Thames and Barnet, not to mention the more important societies of Stalybridge, Hyde and Dukinfield. I am certain that no Chancellor would wish to discriminate against amateur operatic societies in favour of other organisations.
It cannot possibly be a question of finance, for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, speaking on 17th June last year, said:
… we are anxious to encourage these societies to the full, and we are not perturbed by the financial implications of the proposal. It is difficult to estimate what the amount would be; probably of the order of £10,000 a year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June. 1952; Vol. 502, c. 1122.]
I would call the attention of the Chancellor to those words—
… we are anxious to encourage these societies to the full,
I am sure that, if the Chancellor will look again at this Clause, he will agree that he is not encouraging to the full the amateur operatic societies, and these are the societies, even more than the dramatic societies, which need financial help, because their expenses are much greater.
Coming back to this question of finance, if last year the granting of the whole of the concessions for which we asked would have amounted to only £10,000, the concession which we are asking for this year must amount to much less. Therefore, it cannot be on purely financial grounds that the Treasury would resist this Amendment.
These societies, I think everyone will agree, are a most important feature in the civic life of so many of our towns, and particularly of our smaller towns, and it is important that everything should be done in order to encourage them. When speaking in last year's debate, I called attention to the fact that, in these days, we seem to be losing something which was very precious in the life of this country in the past. So many of our entertainments are being provided for us, by the wireless, television and so on, and it


is valuable when we find people endeavouring to provide their own amusement, and it is important that they should be encouraged.
Therefore, I sincerely hope that, in this particular case, the Chancellor will look again at the wording of the Clause as it stands, will realise that he has discriminated rather unfairly against amateur operatic societies, and will do something to put that matter right.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Maudling: This Amendment has been dealt with in such interesting and engaging terms that I am sorry to have to reject it for reasons which I shall try to put before the Committee. I am quite sure hon. Members will believe me when I say that there is no intention on the part of my right hon. Friend to discriminate against amateur operatic societies, and I am certain that, while he would not necessarily agree with the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) about the relative importance of convertibility of the £ sterling and of operatic societies, he attributes to all that full measure of importance to which they are entitled in our modern society.
The Clause, as drawn, gives some considerable further extension to the amateur concession in the matter of Entertainments Duty, because it says:
An entertainment shall not be deemed not to be an amateur entertainment by reason only that any payment is made or reward given for the services of any person as instructor, producer, manager, or in any advisory capacity.
Instructors, managers, and producers can be employed and paid a fee, and that does not undermine the amateur status for tax purposes of the performance.
The real question of this Amendment is the question of the conductor and the orchestra. There are, of course, the charity provisions and the partly educational provisions, to which reference has been made, which allow amateur societies to enjoy this concession subject to certain limitations. The object of this Clause is to provide amateur societies with an opportunity to avail themselves of the tax concession without necessarily having to go through the rather cumbersome processes which apply to the charitable and partly educational concessions.
We have, therefore, made a move in the direction of extending the conces-

sions, but I suggest to the Committee that there must be some limit. It is not only a matter of the revenue involved. The figure of £10,000 was quoted, and that would probably be a fair estimate of the amount involved. But this is surely a matter of principle. Where a concession is given to people putting on one type of entertainment and not given to people putting on a different type of entertainment, we must draw a line between the two. Of course, whenever a line is drawn in these taxation matters there is always bound to be a certain number of anomalies.
The principle on which we have worked is that it shall be an amateur performance if none of the people participating in the performance is paid. The principle in the case of the entertainment is really the same principle that we are seeking to apply in the case of sport. There are two categories of people concerned with entertainment and with sport. There are those who actually participate and those who are essential for the putting on of the entertainment or sport and without whom neither can be put on, though they do not actually participate.
In the case of a sport such as football there are the linesmen, the judge and the man who makes the football boots. All of them are necessary in order that the game can be put on, but they do not participate. We think there is a clear line of distinction between the two, and in the case of a stage performance there is a clear distinction between the people who participate—the actors, the performers, the orchestra, or the conductor— and the stage manager or producer without whose work the play cannot go on, but who do not participate in the show.
It seems to us that such a line can quite clearly be drawn. If all the people who participate in the performance are amateur, then it is an amateur performance, but if anyone participating is paid then the line is crossed and the amateur concession has to be lost. I am afraid the difficulty is that if one were to go over that line and admit, say, the conductor, the orchestra, or the leading singer and allowed them to be paid there would be no other dividing line which in principle could be established to distinguish an amateur from a professional performance.
I hope that I have explained the reasons which underlie the very reluctant unwillingness of the Government to accept the Amendment. The point is that a line must be drawn if a concession is to be given to amateur performances, and a definition of amateur performance must be established in this Bill. It is a question of whether one who is actually participating in an entertainment is paid or not, and I am afraid that a conductor or an orchestra participates in the entertainment. If we extend the concession to performances where the conductor or the orchestra is paid it will be impossible to make a distinction for practical purposes between amateur and professional performances.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We on this side of the Committee are very disappointed with the reply of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. We had hoped that, at long last, we would have had a concession from the Government. I would remind the Economic Secretary and the Chancellor that we have spent some hours on this Bill and that we have not yet had a single concession from the Government on the very reasonable Amendments which have been put forward from this side of the Committee. It occurred to us that here was an opportunity which the Chancellor might seize with both hands, and I am very sorry indeed that he has not seen fit to do so.
We realise that an advance has been made. This matter has proceeded by stages. Last year my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) moved an Amendment which was then rejected in much the same terms as those in which this Amendment has been rejected by the Economic Secretary. We have had to wait a year and now the Chancellor has given us the concession for which we asked last year and which was then refused to us. If the Chancellor remains hard-hearted I can only express the hope that, when we come to the next Finance Bill and if—and it is a very big if—the Chancellor and the present Government are still in office, the right hon. Gentleman will include in that Bill the very Amendment which has been moved today.
We on this side of the Committee are anxious to get on to the next Clause of

the Bill, but I thought it only proper to register, on behalf of my hon. Friends, our great disappointment that the Chancellor has not seen his way to accept the Amendment. It is a very modest Amendment. It will put conductors into the same class as managers, producers and instructors of ordinary dramatic performances. Most of us are music lovers and it seems to us a pity to penalise such things as a Gilbert and Sullivan production purely on the ground that the conductor who is an integral part of the performance must not be paid. Therefore, we hope that if he is still in office next year the Chancellor will see his way to do what he will not do tonight.

Mr. S. Silverman: I know how anxious the majority of the Committee are to get on to what they regard as a more important matter. Nevertheless, it would be a great pity if the Economic Secretary were allowed to get away with so flimsy an explanation of a totally unjustified refusal, such as the one which he has just given. If he had said that this country cannot afford this concession there might be something to be said for what he had to argue. But to say that we can well afford it, that it is not the money involved that worries the Government but a question of principle, and then to go on to explain that the only principle which he had in mind was the necessity to draw a line somewhere, and it did not matter where, was to treat the arguments put before him with frivolity.
How the hon. Gentleman expects us to understand his argument I do not know. He concedes that many young people who are engaged as amateurs in producing a play may employ and pay a skilled producer without losing the benefit of the concession, but he says that that is quite different from the case of the conductor of an orchestra. Why is it? How does one distinguish between the functions performed by a producer in producing a play and those of a conductor in putting on a musical performance with an orchestra?

Mr. J. T. Price: One is behind the scenes and the other is in front.

Mr. Silverman: We see one and not the other. Is the principle that because we do not see the producer he is not participating, and because we see the conductor he is? Suppose that some


people want to produce an amateur play in a reasonable style, and they belong to a cultural centre where amateur dramatics are not the only line? There might also be people who like music. Some of them will spend a long time in training themselves to put on a workmanlike amateur play, and others in training themselves to put on a workmanlike orchestral show. The day comes when they want to show the results of their work in a public performance.
Every member who takes part in the play on the stage does it because he likes it; everybody who plays an instrument in the orchestra does it because he likes it. They are all in the same category. A professional producer has been engaged to make sure that those in the play make the best of their efforts. They are not penalised in any way, but if the musicians do the same thing by employing a professional conductor they are penalised—and the Government call that a principle.
I see no reason why my hon. Friends should not press their Amendment. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), who said he hoped the Government would make a concession if they were still in office next year, but I see no reason why we should wait until next year. The explanation offered by the Government is wholly unsatisfactory. It does not make sense to anyone with any knowledge of these matters. If the Government do not want to make a concession we ought to do all that we can to persuade them.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I want to register what I believe will be the disappointment of nearly all the amateur dramatic and operatic societies at the reply given by the Government to this request. They will feel most indignant at the continuance of the anomalies which now exist in law in respect of Entertainments Duty as between some fully professional theatres and amateur dramatic and operatic societies.
At present, it is possible for certain professional theatres to get complete exemption from Entertainments Duty. I do not know in which year the provision was introduced. I imagine that it was in or about 1947. I know that the late

Lord Keynes was at the Treasury at the time. Certain theatres are completely exempt from Entertainments Duty on the basis of their educational value. The educational value was originally attached to the play or to the performance, but it has since been given to the organisation producing the entertainment.
Under that arrangement it is possible for a fully professional theatre, with a fully professional orchestra, playing for its patrons, to receive complete exemption from Entertainments Duty. If we have that set-up under the Treasury at present, can we wonder that amateur operatic societies throughout the country, feeling it necessary to have an orchestra to supplement their efforts to bring some form of entertainment in their localities, are denied the same right?
In drawing a line of demarcation between the one who is off the stage and the one who is on the stage, the Economic Secretary is making a false analogy. There are professional theatres in this country receiving exemption from Entertainments Duty when they have fully professional orchestras. Under the Treasury ruling at present they are completely exempt from tax. I ask the Economic Secretary to review the situation and to see whether on the Report stage, he can find a better explanation than that which he has given tonight.

9.0 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: I must speak in support of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), although it is not often that I do so. It is perfectly clear from Section 10 of the 1949 Finance Act that a stage play, a ballet, a performance of music, whether vocal or instrumental, a lecture, recitation or an eisteddfod can be treated as exempt from Entertainments Duty provided that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are satisfied that the event is not conducted or established for profit and the entertainment is an amateur one.
The difference between those who support the Amendment and the Economic Secretary is a matter of degree concerning where amateurism ends and where professionalism starts. I should have thought that no one exercising a modicum of common sense could possibly imagine that an amateur operatic


society putting on a show, with four or five professional players in the orchestra pit, had thereby rendered the whole show professional.
I do not believe that the answer which the Economic Secretary gave was written by himself. I believe it was prepared in his Department, who want no more difficulties in administering the 1949 Finance Act than they have already. I hope the Economic Secretary and the Chancellor will be prepared to look at the matter again so that the Government may move an Amendment on the Report stage to put the matter right.
I can appreciate that the present Amendment may not be satisfactory, because I believe there would have to be some limit on the number of professionals performing in an orchestra which was playing for a show produced by an amateur operatic society. There may be administrative difficulties in deciding how many that should be, whether not more than half should be professional or, it may be, not more than one-third.
But I am convinced from my experience in my own constituency that if it is not made possible for professionals to perform with amateurs in some of these amateur orchestras, sooner or later we shall find a difficulty which may finally end in the amateur orchestra or dramatic society having to close down. Instrumentalists are in a class by themselves, because we may perfectly well be able to give a lot of enjoyment to people by insisting that all those playing in a football or cricket match must be amateurs, but that does not apply to instrumentalists, for it is not everybody who can play a French horn, whereas everybody can enjoy themselves on a football pitch.
I am no expert on the instruments used in a theatre orchestra, but I know there are some instruments that are very much more difficult to play than others, and that often one has to look far afield before finding people able to play them. Because one or two of them may have to be paid to take part the amateur status of the performance is to be killed altogether. I therefore hope that the Government will have another look at this matter. I should be quite willing to accept an assurance that the Amendment as it is is unworkable, but I cannot be-

lieve that a way cannot be found to over* come the difficulty, and of putting a limitation on the number of professionals who may take part in an amateur performance without destroying its amateur status.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I wish to support the Amendment because I believe that operatic societies particularly do perform a very useful function today and are an integral part of the cultural life of the rural parts. I can speak only for Cornwall, which is my home county, where we have many amateur operatic societies who put on shows regularly and have a high standard of performance, and have reached such a standard now that it is necessary to engage some professionals. It is hoped that as the revenue derived from the duty on these performances is so small the Government will see whether' a concession can be made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom) drew attention to the fact that some professional people in theatres can get complete exemption from duty. We should also remember that Government grants are made to enable professional actors, and so on, to get salaries in that way. To that we have no objection whatever. Amateur operatic societies are meeting great difficulties today because of rising costs, and I repeat that they fulfil an extremely useful function in rural communities.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I do not wish to detain the Committee because I think it is rather important that we should come to the main debate on these matters. This matter is very confusing, because there is a feeling about conductors, but the difficulty in which we have been, in considering this even before the debate, is that conductors and orchestral musicians, for example, are part of the actual performance, and once we permit payment to performers it is almost impossible to draw a line reasonably so as to include some paid performers and not others.
I honestly think that the best thing the Committee can do is to come to a decision on this matter now. If people feel so strongly about it that they think they must have a vote, we had better have a


vote and settle it. That would be the best way. I cannot give an undertaking that I can find the solution before the Report stage. I should be deluding hon. Members if I told them there was an easy way out. We considered this question fully before the Committee stage. I will undertake to study the speeches that have been made, and that I know have been made sincerely. I have listened to the debate more than, perhaps, is realised, because I have been wandering about the Chamber for some time, and I know what has been going on. However, I would advise the Committee to come to a decision on this matter and leave it at this stage, because I am afraid I cannot give way tonight, because I am at present advised there is no way through the problem.

Mr. J. T. Price: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the implications of this attitude he has conveyed to the Committee? Many of the most eminent and distinguished choirs, both male voice choirs and mixed voice choirs, are entirely amateur in composition with the exception of a professional conductor engaged by those bodies. I do not wish to enumerate particular choirs, but I should say that half a dozen of the most famous choirs, constantly winning awards, are in that position. It seems to me utterly nonsensical, if I may say so with respect to the Chancellor, that because of one particular individual the combined efforts of the many amateur performers should be outside the concession, and that is

something which needs his further attention.

Mr. Butler: In the short interval which I took out of the Chamber from this debate it was precisely the position of these choirs that I was examining, and the position of the choirs is easier than that of orchestras. The difficulty is that I cannot find a solution suitable for both.

Mr. Gaitskell: My hon. Friends have put forward a very powerful case in favour of this Amendment, or at least in favour of the substance of the Amendment, and they have been admirably supported by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). I do not feel that the Government's reply was very convincing. It is true that we have to draw a line in these matters, but frankly it seems to us that the line is drawn in the wrong place.
This is clearly a matter which concerns a large number of people. We are not asking for any evasion; we are asking that these musical and operatic societies should be given the same sort of concession as the Chancellor clearly intends to give to amateur athletic societies, and in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I feel that there is nothing else for us to do but to divide the Committee.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 268; Noes, 272.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir Harold Roper: I do not wish to detain the Committee, but I want to say that there is one form of entertainment which will be helped by this Clause, and that is the village gymkhana. It is an amateur sport and it is not ordinarily conducted for profit.

Therefore, it is a sport which is covered by this Clause. In some cases any surplus revenue from these gymkhanas is devoted to charitable purposes and in my constituency, in one instance, it went towards meeting the cost of a children's Christmas tree. There is no question of commercial gain, but I am not sure what is the definition of the term "profit."
I should be grateful to my right hon. Friend if he will confirm that such a gymkhana will not be debarred from the benefits of this Clause by reason of any surplus funds being used for such purposes. If there is any doubt about it will he look at it again and bring in a suitable Amendment on the Report stage.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: The meagre majority of four which the Government have just obtained on the last Amendment will no doubt be a powerful inducement to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give practical effect to the undertaking which he gave to the Committee to look at the position of amateur theatrical societies. I want to put one simple, brief and practical suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman which I hope will get him out of his difficulty.
I must declare an interest because I happen to be the president of an amateur operatic society. I suggest that in the case of an amateur operatic society of the kind with which I am associated, which puts on one performance of a Gilbert and Sullivan opera every year, it would be simple for the Chancellor to say that so long as all the performers appearing on the stage are amateurs, the can give us the concession we seek, namely, that in the case of such a performance, even though the orchestra and the conductor are paid, it does not derogate from the amateur status of the performance because the performance on the stage is all done by amateurs.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will keep that possibility in mind when, as is the expectation of all of us, he is able to tell us on the Report stage that he will make the concession we seek.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(EXEMPTION OF CRICKET MATCHES FROM ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.)

Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move, in page 4, line 24, to leave out "Cricket matches," and to insert:
All entertainment which consists of games or other sports.
I think the Committee will agree that this is the most important Amendment we have so far discussed in this Bill. A

large number of my hon. Friends wish to speak on it and on the other Amendments relating thereto. I understand, Colonel Gomme-Duncan. that you are likely to call the next Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and also the one immediately following relating to boxing?

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan): indicated assent.

Mr. Gaitskell: I thought it was best to get the position clear. That is, of course, in the event that this Amendment is not carried. That is an important qualification which one must make.
It is appropriate that I should remind the Committee of recent developments in Entertainments Duty. Up to last year we had two groups of entertainments so far as taxation was concerned. First, films, and with films went horse racing, greyhound racing and speedway racing. Then there was the second and lower group which consisted of all the other sports and the live theatre. Last year, however, as the Committee will recall, the Chancellor introduced a third group by reducing horse racing, greyhound racing and speedway racing to the middle level, leaving the live theatre as the third group paying the lowest rate of tax. This year we have a further change, the exemption of certain amateur entertainments and, of course, the exemption of cricket altogether.
9.30 p.m.
Last year, when we debated at considerable length the Chancellor's proposals, we on this side of the Committee objected to the increase of the duty upon sport. We objected to it on the two grounds: first, that it would create financial difficulties for a great many sports clubs of different kinds up and down the country, and secondly, because we could not see any ground for discriminating in favour of the live theatre and against sport. We still hold strongly to that opinion. We did not, unfortunately, prevail upon the Chancellor to accept our views and to go back so far as sport was concerned to the earlier scale of duties. The only concession that we got from the right hon. Gentleman was a temporary one in the case of cricket.
This year, we base our case once more on the financial difficulties of football clubs and other sporting organisations,


which have become far more serious since the last Budget. But we also base our case once again on the ground of discrimination. This time we are bound to emphasise that the Chancellor has discriminated in favour of one sport— namely, cricket—and has left all the others out.
Before I go any further, there are two points that I should like to clear out of the way. In the Amendment on which I spoke last year, we included not only games and sports, but racing also. This year, as the Committee will have noticed, our Amendment is confined to games and sports only. The reason we did that was that last year the Chancellor, in reply to our Amendment, made it perfectly plain that he objected most strongly to the idea of making any further concession to horse racing and dog racing. I do not feel Very strongly one way or the other on this issue.
I said then, and I still believe it is true, that it was difficult to sustain permanently a distinction between racing— horse and dog racing, and the others— and football, cricket, and so on. I still think it is difficult to do so, but it is certainly not a point that I would press. When we were in power we maintained that distinction for a long time, and in deference to the Chancellor's wishes last year I thought it better that we should leave racing where it is now and confine our Amendment to the other sports.
The second point that I should like to take up is the position of films. Later during the passage of the Bill we shall, I hope, be able to discuss whether the present rates of taxation on cinema attendances are fair, whether they can be borne and whether they ought to be reduced—but that is not, of course, the subject for discussion tonight. I think we can all agree that whether or not the present rate on cinemas should be reduced, at any rate the tax on cinemas is now in a separate category.
The Chancellor put it in that separate category last year. I do not blame him for doing so, and have never objected to that. We must recognise that this form of entertainment is likely to remain in a separate category, whatever level it may be, for the frank reason that it constitutes the major part of the Entertainments Duty. I think I am right in saying that

out of the £43 million or so of Entertainments Duty, something like £39 million is derived from films.

Mr. R. A. Butler: indicated assent.

Mr. Gaitskell: That leads me straight to the first point that I want to establish. The amount of revenue involved in the rest of the Entertainments Duty must be admitted to be very small indeed. It may be £4 million or is probably even less; but if it is £2, £3 or £4 million the right hon. Gentleman cannot this year say that he cannot afford the concession. After all, this year he has given away in a full year £200 million in taxation, and it is no answer to us to say that if he has been able to do that it is too extensive to make a concession on sport.
This discrimination in favour of cricket was defended by the Chancellor in his Budget speech. Before quoting from that speech, I should like to say that we are not objecting to the exemption of cricket from Entertainments Duty. On the contrary, we pressed for concessions last year and we are always glad to have concessions made to us, but this does leave the Chancellor in a very difficult position— on a very sticky wicket. How does he defend this discrimination? The paragraph which contains his argument reads as follows:
In most sports the amateur definition which I have devised will, I think, work reasonably well, but it will not do for cricket In this country cricket occupies a special place among sports, not only as forming part of the English tradition but as a common interest helping to bind together the various countries of the Commonwealth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 55.]
The only other argument adduced is that receipts the Revenue derives from Entertainments Duty on cricket are very small. Exactly how does the Chancellor justify this distinction between cricket and other sports on amateur grounds? I take it that the first sentence of the paragraph I have quoted means in effect that he cannot exclude it on the basis of the definition of "amateur" that he has put in the Bill but wants to exclude it because he vaguely regards it as a more amateur sport—I will not say an amateurish sport. I hope we shall not have comments on recent matches. Coming from myself, who cannot play cricket at all, that would be quite indefensible and I am reminded that Yorkshire are not doing very well.
The position surely is that certainly there are some cricket teams which have quite a number of amateurs and some very few amateurs, but the Chancellor will find that other sports also, at any rate occasionally, have amateurs playing with professionals. I know that it is not very common in Rugby League football and not common in the First Division Association clubs, but I am informed that there are occasional instances even in the case of Rugby League first teams and many more instances when we go, so to speak, lower down the sporting scale.
It is true that in the case of Rugby League those who play are overwhelmingly professionals, but in this sense they are all part-time professionals. They do not make a living solely in this way. Indeed, it is a condition, I am assured, which the clubs lay down that their players shall have other jobs. They get small sums of money for playing, but they are working in factories, shops, or offices. There is no doubt at all that in the case of the club in my constituency, Hunslet, which is in a very heavy industrial area of Leeds, most of the players— except when they get occasional help from Wales—are local men and they spend their time in other jobs.
Thirdly, even so far as they are professional players, I do not think it is possible to draw a line solely on that basis. We have to bear in mind that the professional clubs, if we can call them that, do a very great deal for amateur sports. In the case of the Rugby League teams to which I have referred, a very great deal is done in that way. They help the coming players. I am told that in Leeds the clubs assist no less than 80 school teams in the city in various ways. They have charity matches to assist them and allow them the use of their grounds. In such ways they are undoubtedly contributing to amateur play.
The Chancellor says that cricket has a special place and that it is part of the English tradition. That was not a very convincing argument. We know that the word "tradition" makes a special appeal to the Conservative Party. It really means that the older a thing is the more they are in favour of it. The Chancellor should furbish up the facts on this and see just how cricket and football stand in relation to each other. The results of my researches show that football is a

great deal older than cricket. It was played in some form by the Greeks and the Romans. It was played in London in 1175. It was forbidden by Edward II in consequence of "the great noise in the City caused by hustling over large balls." It was again prohibited by Henry VIII and Elizabeth I because, I understand, of the brutality and violence associated with the game.
After this splendid record in our island history I am afraid that cricket cannot bear comparison. As far as I know, it was not until the reign of Edward IV that cricket was prohibited—several reigns after the time when football was prohibited. I hope that I shall not be out of order in saying, Colonel Gomme-Duncan, that we feel that you, coming as you do from Scotland, will be reasonably impartial in this matter though, if anything, you would side rather more with football than with cricket.
The truth of the matter is that we may say that cricket is our national summer pastime. But the fact is that football is our national winter pastime, and the Chancellor is discriminating against the winter sport. I can understand the attractions of summer sport, but when we come to taxation surely the argument should be the other way. It is very attractive to play or to watch games in the summer: it is much less attractive in the winter when it is windy, wet, cold, snowy and frosty. Winter sport should be helped rather more than summer sport.
As for the Commonwealth links, it is true that there are games between the Australian and British teams, the South Africans and West Indians, and so on. But there are other sports also which play an important part with the Commonwealth. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Argentine?"] The Argentine is not part of the Commonwealth. Again, to return to Rugby League. Test matches are played in Australia and New Zealand. The Australians and New Zealanders come over here. I assure the Chancellor that attendance at these Test matches, both here and in Australia and New Zealand, is very high indeed.
I am told that the Australians themselves are particularly asking that in the Rugby League Test matches when they come over here a special concession should be made so that no Entertainments


Duty will be paid. I believe that in New Zealand a concession has already been made. Therefore, the Chancellor has some precedents to go on. We know that precedents appeal to him just as tradition appeals. New Zealand has now set a precedent which he might be prepared to follow.
As for soccer, it may be true that, for various reasons, international matches do not attract so much publicity or take on so much importance as Rugby League football and cricket matches. Nevertheless, it would be absurd to deny that international soccer matches are not of the very highest importance. We all know that there was one only the other day somewhere in Latin-America—in the Argentine. It was true that it was washed out and it is true that the English team lost the preceding game, but we moist not be influenced by whether the teams are doing well or badly. I can recall being abroad before the war—I think it was in Vienna—and being astounded to find the passionate interest which the Austrian people took in the results of English league matches, so widely had the fame of our soccer spread. I do not think that the Chancellor's argument will hold water for one moment.
There is no doubt that the Chancellor will say, as he did last year, that cricket is in a very difficult position, that clubs are losing money, attendances are falling, and so on. I really must tell him that precisely the same thing is happening in other sports. There are falling attendances, and at the same time, more tax. Indeed, as long ago as 1950–51, after the steady decline in their financial position, half the Rugby League clubs were making losses, and I have no doubt whatever that their position is a great deal worse now, because, since then, attendances have continued to fall and the tax has been imposed. It may be true—I dare say it is—that most First Division Association clubs are perfectly happy and fairly wealthy, but everybody knows that this is certainly not the case with Third Division clubs, and, I am sorry to say, some Second Division clubs as well.
9.45 p.m.
The fact is, of course, that at time of declining trade and tighter money, of which the Chancellor is very proud when he speaks on other occasions, he has im-

posed a higher tax and made things extremely difficult for those clubs. I say to him that this is a quite untenable position. Many of these clubs are in great difficulties, and I cannot see how he can possibly defend this special treatment of cricket while leaving all other sports to bear the higher taxation which he imposed last year.
This is the first of three Amendments, and I very much hope that the Chancellor will accept it. I am sure that the clean and straightforward thing to do is to take tax off all sports. It will cost very little money, and will be extremely popular. If he will not accept that proposal, we shall certainly continue to press for concessions to be made in respect of football and boxing, which are referred to in the two Amendments which have been selected by the Chair for discussion. Sooner or later, we shall all have to come to the conclusion that it would be far better to take the tax off sport altogether.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I have known the Chancellor a long while. We have grown grey together. Although we differ politically, I have always looked upon him as a man of his word. Last year, I was very impressed by the Chancellor's attitude towards this problem, his sympathetic approach to what we said, the tone of his voice, his general demeanour and the promise which he made. Therefore, it was a great surprise to me when I heard him announce in his Budget statement this discrimination between one form of sport and another. In our debate last year, the Chancellor spoke against any differentiation, and said:
And if we were to make differentiations of that sort, we should rapidly upset confidence in the structure of the duties as a whole, —
Therefore, if he is a man of his word, he must now withdraw the proposals contained in this Finance Bill. Does the Chancellor accept what I have said? Of course he does. If so, why did he introduce this time this differentiation to which he said he was opposed on the last occasion? On the same date— column 282, if anybody wants to check it—the Chancellor said:
I shall do my duty by undertaking to review this aspect of the tax in the light of the evidence I can collect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1952; Vol. 500, c. 280–2.]
Is this differentiation which the right hon. Gentleman is now introducing


between one sport and another and between one grade and another—and owing to my background I am inclined to say something else, but I will not because I do not want to introduce a controversial note at this stage—the result of that review? If so, when he comes to reply will he produce the evidence which has convinced him that it is correct to introduce this differentiation between one sport and another? Has the Chancellor received from his advisers and from other cohorts—because he is himself interested in sport—examples of the almost impossible task he is imposing on those who will have to administer this differentiation, and the impossibility of defining an amateur organisation as against a professional one? Has the right hon. Gentleman been informed about the difficulties involved in the administration of this proposed discrimination?
Many in the House are interested in golf. There are 3,000 golf clubs in this country and many of them employ a professional, a groundsman who acts as a professional or a captain who is really a professional.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: No.

Mr. Smith: Many employ a coach. Now say "No" to that. Many of us are friendly with these men and we know that they are really professionals. Other clubs pay amateurs to act as captain or coach and they are not described as professionals. How are they to administer contradictions of that character?

Mr. Osborne: Which sport is the hon. Gentleman talking about? What clubs pay amateurs?

Hon. Members: Soccer.

Mr. Smith: Had the hon. Gentleman been listening to what I was saying he would have realised that I was speaking about golf. I think too much of personal relationships as otherwise I could produce the evidence.
These clubs also play games for club funds and charities. Will they be dealt with under these proposals and will they benefit by these proposals? How will the amateur cricket clubs be affected if they employ professionals or a groundsman or a coach who play in the team as amateurs? How will that be adminis-

tered? How will the clubs that play in the Staffordshire League and in the Central Lancashire League, where real cricket is played, be affected by the proposals?
I should like the Chancellor to listen to my next point because I hope to win him over to my interpretation. Many amateur clubs organise Sunday games for club funds and benevolent and charitable purposes. In order to attract people they often invite a professional to play for them on that day. I have seen hundreds of people, including many who live in my district, go in droves to watch a cricket match on Sunday because Constantine was playing. These proposals will mean that, although these clubs play for charitable purposes and for objects which most people of public spirit wish to see encouraged, if a man like Constantine plays for them the event will not be interpreted as an amateur game. I hope that the Chancellor will reconsider this matter before he replies and will give the real interpretation which he gave last year so that we can eliminate these difficulties which people who are called to administer these clubs have to face.

Mr. Nabarro: I have been asking my right hon. Friend many Parliamentary Questions in the course of the last few weeks in order to arrive at some reliable statistics on the revenue derived respectively from cricket and football. My right hon. Friend told me that the loss to the Revenue in respect of withdrawal of Entertainments Duty on cricket would involve only £36,000 in a full year, but in the case of football the amount is no less than £1,500,000, or something like 40 times as much.
In common with most other hon. Members on both sides of this Committee, representations have been made to me by local football teams and clubs, notably the small clubs, who aver that their finances are seriously affected by my right hon. Friend's depredations. I have every sympathy with the small clubs, but very little sympathy with the Arsenals, the West Bromwich Albions and other large and wealthy clubs.

Mr. Ellis Smith: On a point of order. I regret to labour the point, Sir Charles, but you know the undertaking that was given and most of us have tried to abide by it.

The Chairman: I have only just come into the Chair. I understood that what was arranged was that everything except football and boxing should come under this Amendment, and I proposed to call the next Amendment about football and the subsequent one about boxing. I thought that these references should be kept until we came to those Amendments.

Mr. Nabarro: Further to that point of order. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), who moved this Amendment, had a great deal to say about football and cricket and their respective merits.

Mr. Gaitskell: I did not understand the ruling in that sense. Sir Charles. I understood that there was to be a general debate, and while, naturally, we would not go into details of individual clubs, nevertheless we would discuss the broad issue of whether it was right to favour cricket vis-à-vis other sports, including football. I should have thought that if we left football and boxing out altogether the general purpose of this Amendment would be completely nullified.

The Chairman: I am completely in the hands of the Committee, but I thought that we were to discuss football by itself and boxing by itself.

Mr. Ellis Smith: If you will pardon my saying so, Sir Charles, I am not blaming you for your handicap in this matter. Mr. Bowles was in the Chair when this matter was brought up. We undertook to abide by the ruling of the Chair that we should not mention specific sports when debating this Amendment and that we should leave football and boxing until the Amendments specifically concerning them came before the Committee.

10.0 p.m.

The Chairman: That is what I thought was going to meet the convenience of the Committee. I thought the intention was that in this debate we should discuss tennis, bowls and some of the other sports and then deal separately with football and boxing.

Mr. James Carmichael: When the Chancellor replies he will be in duty bound to refer to the financial aspect of all sports. It would save the time of the Committee and enable us to get to grips with the problem

much more speedily if we included all the sports. I am satisfied that the Chancellor cannot reply properly to this debate without including football. We should be wasting time if the Chancellor were to reply early on and we were then subsequently to debate football.

Mr. Nally: The Committee have been placed in a completely ridiculous situation. I thought we understood from Mr. Bowles that while it was recognised that there would be a certain degree of elasticity, you. Sir Charles, had ruled that we should not discuss boxing and football in detail. Unless we honour the undertaking that there shall be a general debate on the taxes that affect sport without going into too great detail, not only my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) but everybody who has spoken since has been out of order.
The understanding from Mr. Bowles was that you had decided that we should have a general debate in which, without going into too great detail, we should discuss the general issues of discrimination between cricket and football, professionalism and amateurism, and so on. If we cannot do that we might as well finish the debate now.

The Chairman: Perhaps it would meet the convenience of the Committee if we touched only lightly on the question of boxing and football now and discussed them in detail when we come to the later Amendment. According to my note, we were to leave the discussion of football— both Association and Rugby—and boxing until we come to the later Amendment.

Mr. Gaitskell: We must get this clear. I undertsood that we had taken these three Amendments together. The first one includes football and boxing and all the sports. It is impossible to discuss this Amendment and to give any meaning to our discussion if we leave out football and boxing. I agree that we should not go into details because those two sports are covered by a later Amendment, but I never understood that we were not to discuss football or boxing at all.

The Chairman: Perhaps the Committee would rather have a detailed discussion on this Amendment and then have divisions without further discussion on the other Amendments.

Mr. Ellis Smith: This matter has worked out in a very unfortunate way. Mr. Bowles gave us the benefit of your advice, Sir Charles, and we all accepted it. We have worked to it and now we expect that the undertaking and the ruling will be honoured.

The Chairman: I think the view of the Committee is that we should touch lightly upon football and boxing and deal with them in detail when we reach the later Amendments.

Mr. Nabarro: If I interpret your ruling correctly, Sir Charles, by the use of comparative statistics concerning these sports, I shall not have strayed too far from the rules of order which you have defined. I have a good deal of sympathy with the small clubs but not very much sympathy with the large ones, which are capable of attracting big gates generally and are in a sound financial position.
The fact is that my right hon. Friend has to raise the revenue from some source or other. It is a matter of degree, but Entertainments Duty does make a substantial contribution to revenue. Out of a total sum of £43 million raised in Entertainments Duty last year, about £4 million was in respect of sport. Of that £4 million, £1,500,000 is for football and only £36,000 is for cricket. Hon. Members opposite who think it would be a good thing to abolish Entertainments Duty on football, ought to say what tax or duty they are prepared to levy as a substitute in raising that sum in revenue. As far as I can see, the total of all the Amendments they have placed on the Order Paper for the Committee stage run to reliefs of taxation amounting to several hundred million pounds. In 1945, again in 1950 and again in 1951, the overwhelming majority of the people of this nation voted for a Welfare State.

Mr. Nally: On a point of order. I realise, Sir Charles, that you are listening very carefully, but if we are to have even the sort of sentences which the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is using, and if we are to take them as a precedent for what hon. Members on this side may say in the next half-hour or couple of hours, we shall be here for a very long time. May I ask you not to stretch your generosity too far?

The Chairman: I am waiting for the argument to develop.

Mr. Nabarro: In 1945, again in 1950 and again in 1951, the overwhelming majority of the people of this nation voted for a Welfare State. The trouble is that when they do so they often expect somebody else to pay for it. Today, over 60 million people pay Entertainments Duty in the course of a year to watch football matches. All of those people are principal beneficiaries of the Welfare State and ought to be prepared to pay a small sum on every football ticket they buy in order to sustain an order of society for which they voted through the ballot.

Mr. James Simmons: What about golf balls?

Mr. Nabarro: I do not play golf.
There may well be an alternative in this matter within the narrow confine of the one sport which will be the principal subject of our discussion—namely, football. If Entertainments Duty on football is to be withdrawn, why should not hon. Members opposite advocate that the revenue be made good by an increase in the football pools tax which at present is levied at 30 per cent. It would require to be increased by only 2½ per cent. to make good the loss of revenue of £1,500,000 which would be entailed if the Entertainments Duty on football were withdrawn. If Entertainments Duty on the whole of sport were withdrawn and the loss of revenue were £4 million, as we are told, it would be necessary to increase the amount of the football pools tax by approximately 7½ per cent. to 37½ per cent.
My submission is that those advocates of the abolition of the Entertainments Duty on football and other forms of sport ought to say how the revenue is to be made good and, in addition, ought to say whether they are prepared to see the football pools tax commensurately increased so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can find the necessary revenue to sustain the Welfare State from which the overwhelming majority of people who pay Entertainments Duty are the principal beneficiaries.

Mr. Nally: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the wealthiest football millionaire in this country is a former Tory Party candidate for the Clay Cross division and a former Tory councillor in


Liverpool? Hon. Members on this side have always been in favour of taxing football pools. Would the hon. Member tell us what consultations he has had with the football pool promoters, a large number of whom provide funds for the Tory Party, about the proposal which he is putting forward?

Mr. Nabarro: I am sure, Sir Charles, that you have listened carefully to me throughout the last 10 minutes, and that you know that I have not proclaimed my support for any increase in the tax on football pools. What I have said is that it is the responsibility of hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they support the abolition of Entertainments Duty on any particular form of sport, to say how the revenue is to be made good. I am suggesting an easy recourse for them, which would find favour very readily with their constituents, I have no doubt, particularly with the constituents of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally), in that he should go on public platforms and advocate an increase in the football pools tax. That would evidently be a reasonable and rational course for him to follow.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: The Chancellor has so far been following this debate with the rigid and somewhat embalmed look of a gentleman who strays into the players' dressing room and does not understand the language. I hope that before the debate is completed he will have unbent a little and taken advantage of the opportunity I wish to propose to him to help a sport I wish to draw to his attention, very briefly, and have shown his willingness to assist not only cricket, which, I entirely agree with him, is the cement of the Commonwealth, but also the game of tennis, which is an element in binding together the Atlantic community.
Let me declare my own limited interest in the matter. I am an enthusiastic and mediocre tennis player. None the less, I feel that we have gone a long way from the time when tennis used to be simply a royal occupation. Today tennis is a sport which is practised by thousands of week-end players up and down the country on tennis courts provided by municipalities. One of the most striking and, indeed, alarming things about tennis as a sport as practised in this country is the remarkably low standard of play, and that

is entirely due to the fact that there has not been that degree of professional skill accessible to the vast new numbers of those playing the game today.
There has not been that amount of skill available to give the guidance, training and coaching necessary for the development of any sport. If we compare the progress of tennis in this country with, say, the progress of tennis in the United States we find that gradually the gap in proficiency in the sport between the one country and the other had steadily widened. The reason has been that in the United States there has not been that snobbery about professionals in tennis that is still retained in tennis here, alone among the major sports of this country.
Each year there are three tournaments promoted for the participation of tennis professionals. There is the tournament at Scarborough which is promoted by Slazenger's, to advertise the products of the firm; there is the Lawn Tennis Association's promotion known as the Professional Championship at Eastbourne; and there is the London International Professional Tournament promoted by private interests at Wembley. The tournament at Wimbledon is promoted entirely for the interests of amateurs. The three main professional tournaments are limited by locality and also by the numbers of people who view the game. The result is that literally tens of thousands of young players never have an opportunity of seeing tennis played in a highly skilled and professional way.
The Wimbledon tournament attracts annually large numbers of viewers. Nonetheless, a number of keen tennis players do not get an opportunity of attending the Wimbledon tournament either because they cannot afford the price of a seat or because they cannot get in at the most crowded periods of the tournament at weekends. These people do not have the opportunity of seeing lawn tennis played in the best way. It is because of that, I am urging the Chancellor to remit the Entertainments Duty on professional tennis tournaments.
10.15 p.m.
When I mentioned that there were only three professional tennis tournaments I emphasised that point to draw the Chancellor's attention to the limitations of the problem which faces us. When he removed the Entertainments Duty from


cricket he stated specifically that he was encouraged to do so by the fact that the problem facing him was a small one. Because it was a smaller problem than removing the Entertainments Duty on football it made him all the more ready to apply himself to that particular solution.
I would point out that the actual sum of money involved—the actual total of gate receipts for professional tennis is almost negligible. During the year these add up to little more than £30,000. If he were to consent to remove all Entertainments Duty from these professional tournaments it would be encouraging to those admirable professionals whom we have in this country to go touring and give demonstrations of lawn tennis, not only in the more rarified areas of Eastbourne and Scarborough and, indeed, of Wimbledon, too. but encourage them to go to other places and give people an opportunity of watching tennis played in the best possible way.
Recently the Lawn Tennis Association appealed specially for parties of young players to be taken to the International Professional Tournament at Wembley. I think that we can see in that some prospect that the time will come when there will be not only amateur tournaments for all England inviting all comers but when there will be a mixed professional and amateur tournament which is available to all.
When that time comes, it is quite clear that tennis, instead of being a game still retaining its old upper class and middle class associations, will become a genuinely popular game, a game not simply accessible to all but a game in which all will be able to excel their present standard. I urge the Chancellor to deal with this very limited problem and to say that he is in earnest when he says that he is prepared to encourage other sports in due course by the remission of Entertainments Duty.
Before I conclude, I want to add two or three sentences on the question of Entertainments Duty on football. I speak for a football team in Coventry which has undergone many vicissitudes and, perhaps I ought to say that the position which it occupies in the League in no way reflects its skill or prowess. I must

add that Coventry City is a team which is at home in whichever league or division it may find itself. It readily adapts itself to that situation. Nonetheless, Coventry is poor in finance although rich in spirit.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I do not want to go against the Rulings of the Chair, but I would point out that the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) has had her name down for weeks to speak on this matter, and I think that that ought to be borne in mind.

Mr. Edelman: Bearing that in mind, I was about to conclude by saying that in moving this Amendment on the question of tennis I do so in no narrowness of outlook but merely to show that tennis is a part of that galaxy of games from which Entertainments Duty should be removed so that when the Chancellor next makes his appearance on television he will not flourish a little bat but stand in front of a complete sports shop.

Mr. P. B. Lucas: We have heard a great deal about a variety of sports, but, so far, very little has been said, except derisively, about golf. I have no financial interest in the game, although I have a long and abiding personal interest in it.
The point I wish to raise is a narrow one, concerning the two championships run by the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, the Open Championship and the Amateur Championship. From the wording of the Bill it would seem that the Amateur Championship will be exempt from Entertainments Duty, but the position of the Open Championship is not so clear, and it is about this that I wish to say a word.
The event is run by a strictly amateur body, the championship committee of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club. It is financed on a non-profit-making basis, from a fund which is entirely separate from the Royal and Ancient Club's general trading account. The moneys received from the tournament are ploughed back into the fund and used for the sole purpose of enabling the championship to be staged in future years.
The competitors consist of both amateurs and professionals, and none receives any financial payment at all for


taking part. The great majority of professionals who compete are substantially out of pocket at the end of the week; indeed, only a handful can show any profit on their winnings.
The rewards for those who are successful are relatively small in comparison with the importance of the event. This is one of the reasons why we do not see from overseas the same sort of entry that we used to have in days gone by, particularly from the United States, and this is a pity. To any British professional who wins the tournament, the value of his victory in prestige and in subsequent earning power far outweighs the monetary reward which he receives. In the event of an amateur winning the competition—since 1860 this has happened only half a dozen times—he receives no monetary reward at all and the prize which he would have received had he been a professional is paid into a benevolent fund.
This event seems to me to deserve special treatment. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give the assurance that, together with the Amateur Championship, this tournament will qualify for exemption from the duty. It is one of the oldest, and, I think, still one of the greatest, events in British sport. It arouses a wide interest throughout the whole of the world, not least in the British Commonwealth, and it retains its unique atmosphere primarily because it is run on a strictly non-profit-making basis by an essentially amateur body. For these reasons, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to say that he will treat this event and the Amateur Championship kindly and will exempt them both from Entertainments Duty.

Mr. W. T. Proctor: I wish to speak on behalf of the game of bowls. I received a deputation at the House from the Lancashire Professional Bowling Association, who informed me that the Entertainments Duty presses hard upon them, and I appeal to the Chancellor to consider whether it is worth while financially for him to continue to collect the duty. The Lancashire Professional Bowling Association operates throughout the county. This week it has a match in Wigan, and it holds matches in various areas in Manchester and also in Bolton, and I hope hon. Members who represent

those areas will be interested in this matter.
The Association inform me that they have raised a great deal of money for charitable purposes. They also told me that their balance in hand has gone down from £550 to £309, which they ascribe totally to the operation of the increased Entertainments Duty, and that they do not feel it possible to pass the tax on to spectators who come to watch their games because they are largely composed of old-age pensioners.
One interesting point which emerges from the information they have sent me, is that the four players receive 4d. for each game. I am sorry that they lose their amateur status for such a small sum of money. I appeal to the Chancellor to look into this matter and give some consideration to the bowling fraternity and see whether he cannot deal with bowls on the same basis as he is dealing with cricket. There is an historical association with bowls. Sir Francis Drake, on a famous occasion, wanted time to finish his game. I ask the Chancellor to find time not to finish the game.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I want to say a word or two about the Amendment, not to add another sport to the many already discussed, but because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the point at issue is the discrimination in favour of cricket in contradistinction to all other sports. I do not think that as yet the Committee have dealt fairly with the parlous financial condition in which cricket finds itself, and I think that that is a relevant consideration in discussing this Amendment. While I am convinced that the Chancellor is right in what he proposes to do, I am less happy about the reactions to the reasons he gave for so doing. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted my right hon. Friend's phrase:
In this country cricket occupies a special place among sports."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 55.]
I think that has been misinterpreted in many places. By some soccer fans I know it has been attributed quite wrongly to a class bias.
I do not want to dwell upon the amateur aspect that the right hon. Gentleman raised, because as far as cricket is concerned the amateur era is


drawing rapidly to a close. No case could be made on amateur grounds as far as first-class cricket is concerned. While there can be no defence on sentimental ground, there does seem to me to be the strongest defence on grounds of a blood transfusion into the game, without which I, for one, am of the opinion that first-class cricket will not exist in a year or two.
I have some evidence to support the case that, financially, first-class cricket is suffering an alarming decline. The attendance last year, which was a fair year, was 2½ million. That is well below the average attendance in 1951, which was a wet season. Of the 17 counties involved in this game and which form the basis of the sport in this country, all are in some financial difficulty, and only one last year made a profit before receiving the distribution of largesse which the M.C.C. gives from accumulated earnings on tours abroad or international fixtures in this country.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that many first-class counties like Worcestershire and Leicestershire are getting this shot in the arm he talks about by having football pools? They are making £20,000 a year by football pools like Littlewoods.

Mr. Deedes: I was about to add that the financial results would be even worse if they did not indulge in such activities, or if some of their secretaries did not spend their winters organising whist drives. I know that 17 clubs in the three years 1949, 1950 and 1951 made a total profit of £50,000, which was an average of £17,000 a year, or less than £1,000 each. That was the margin on which first-class cricket existed.
I am well aware of the fact that many football clubs can tell roughly the same story, but there are one or two important distinctions. First, the game of cricket, particularly first-class three-day cricket, is affected by the weather almost more than any other sport, far more so than football. Secondly, the aggregate attendance for first-class cricket in this country in the whole of the summer does not exceed the gates of League football on three Saturdays in the winter. That will give some comparative impression of the public impact on the two games.
Thirdly, I would not dream of quoting the Commonwealth on sentimental or international or political grounds, but the fact is that cricket in the Commonwealth depends almost exclusively on the money they can get from tours in this country or our tours with them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, that money has a great deal to do with financing the game in their own countries.
Many hon. Members might say, "Let the game die out," but I think many people would regret that. Even the strongest Soccer fans would be sorry to see that happen, and it might happen even more suddenly than hon. Members realise. I think it is a mistake to suggest that the financial answer is the only answer. While my right hon. Friend might be out of order if he tried to do so, I should like the Chancellor to warn cricket lovers and organisers of first-class cricket at large that what the Treasury can do for them is only a little part of what they have to do for themselves, because this game has to be reorganised in accordance with postwar trends and public desires.
As one who has watched and loved cricket for 25 years I am well aware of that. It may be that 17 counties cannot support this game, that it will have to be reorganised. The Australians have ideas as to what might occur, although we may not want to take their ideas on the subject. All this needs thinking about, and I hope that if the Chancellor goes through with it he will take occasion to say, "The Treasury can go so far but the game must now do something for itself, and it must organise itself in a way which, in future, will make it self-supporting because this is the last thing I, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, can do for you." If that is said and acted upon, if the M.C.C. were to set up a commission to inquire into the organisation of the game, we might tonight have taken a useful and important step in the interests of the game.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I rise, not to describe, on the whole, the way in which we can help first-class cricket, although selectors might look at club cricket to see whether there is any talent which might be brought in.
I want the Chancellor to answer this point in defending his discrimination of first-class cricket against other sports.


There is very little professional athletics in this country. How much does the Chancellor expect to get from the one or two professional meetings held each year? Is it worth collecting? He must have had some estimate. I do not believe it is worth collecting. What is the amount?

Mr. Osborne: I want to support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) and ask the Chancellor to look sympathetically at the position of golf, especially the two big meetings. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) made many extraordinary statements about the game of golf, including the statement that many golf clubs pay their captains. I should not like that to go out uncorrected and I must protest against it, because in no sport is amateur status more carefully and jealously guarded than in golf. I very much regret the statement that the hon. Gentleman made.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I very much hope that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) realises that none of us wish to go back on the exemption of cricket. The point is the discrimination, and not only the discrimination between cricket and other sport. I think that all attempts to discriminate between various sports are wrong, quite illogical and unworkable, but I think the particular discrimination the Chancellor has chosen is the very worst discrimination of all. That is the distinction between amateurs and professionals. I can see no special merit in amateur or professional; each plays the game and gives great pleasure to those who watch. On these grounds alone, I would not admit the discrimination which the Chancellor is forcing upon us.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am sorry to interrupt, as the hon. Member knows a great deal about sport, but I am not prepared to answer on that basis on cricket because we have dealt with the amateur question on Clause 5 and this is Clause 6. I should be in some difficulty in answering, if I were in order to do so.

Mr. Mallalieu: Not on cricket only; it is the whole business of the distinction made between amateur and professional sport and not merely in regard to cricket.
The second point about this particular distinction is that it is extremely difficult to decide what an amateur is. There are plenty of well-known sportsmen who are called amateurs, but are as much professionals as anyone. I am not at the moment talking of sham amateurs, but of people who are secretaries of clubs which they captain, people who write about sport and broadcast—

The Chairman: I think we have passed the amateur Clause.

Mr. Mallalieu: I believe that the distinction which the Chancellor is making as between amateur and professional is very much embodied in the Amendment to which I am speaking. It is an integral part of it and, if you will allow me, Sir Charles, I should like to press lit. It is very difficult to decide what an amateur really is and the proposals which the Chancellor has put before us will not have the effect which he desires.

The Chairman: I think the hon. Gentleman is pressing this amateur point. It is only cricket, which includes both amateurs and professionals, which is included in this Clause. The amateur Clause was Clause 5, and we have finished with that.

Mr. Gaitskell: On a point of order. With great respect, this Amendment is deliberately drawn fairly wide. It is our main Amendment on which we are arguing against the major Budget policy of the Chancellor, that is, the exemption of amateur sport and cricket and leaving everything else in. I submit—particularly as the Chancellor has argued on occasion, or his words implied, that one of his reasons for exempting cricket is that there is a certain amateur quality about it—that my hon. Friend is in order in putting this point.

The Chairman: It does not say so in the Clause, does it? [Interruption.] Perhaps I might be allowed to talk a little myself. Clause 5 deals with the amateur part, and this Clause, as far as I can see, exempts cricket; professional and amateur, it does not make the slightest difference.

Mr. Gaitskell: The Amendment proposes to insert, for "Cricket matches" "All entertainment which consists of games or other sports." I should have thought that it was perfectly legitimate


that, as the proposal of the Chancellor is to take out amateur sport and cricket, while leaving everything else taxed, my hon. Friend should continue with his argument.

The Chairman: My reading of the Clause is that it covers cricket, which might include amateurs or professionals, but we are past the amateur point.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: We wish to get rid of the discrimination, and that is why we are seeking to insert all sport, including all amateur sport. I am arguing the case slightly in reverse by taking the case which the Chancellor himself has put to the Committee, and I submit that I am in order.
The distinction between amateurs and professionals is, in my opinion, invalid and cannot be worked out. The Chancellor's proposals will have the reverse effect to that which he intends. He wishes to help the amateurs, but amateur clubs which are the majority in this country are not affected by Entertainments Duty at all. They do not usually charge for admission. The only amateur clubs to be affected are the big wealthy clubs, in other words the practitioners of sham amateurism. It will not help amateurs but will tend to help the bogus amateurs, who are the worst of the lot.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) said that it is from the professional clubs that the help for the real amateurs comes, that all the vast sums of money poured out by the Football League and the Football Association, that are given to amateur clubs, come from the professional bodies. This discrimination does much to defeat that immensely valuable fund. I wish to make two direct references to football. The effect of these proposals on the professional game is that the smaller clubs in the Third Division will find it almost impossible to pay their way out of the ordinary gate money. They will be forced into keeping their heads above water by selling players. What the Chancellor is now doing is to encourage the very worst features in professional football by forcing these clubs to continue the transfer system which, in my opinion, is wholly wrong, if they are to have a chance of survival.
There are in many games, cricket is one and football is another, small clubs which are almost wholly amateur, but which have one professional as a player. He is there not only as a player, but as a coach. These football and other clubs are going to say, "If we keep this professional, who is improving our young men, we shall get a high rate of Entertainments Duty. Therefore, we will sack him in order to get exemption from the duty."
What the Chancellor is doing is to make sure that the quality of play in a whole series of games in minor leagues throughout the country will suffer. I therefore ask him, for all these reasons, which are considerable, to look at this once again in the spirit in which he looked at it last year. Having turned one somersault, I beg him to exercise his talents and to turn another one tonight.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: If a certain amount of money has to be raised for public purposes, then I think that the Entertainments Duty is not an unreasonable way of doing it. Let us not confuse the playing of games with the watching of games. I cannot help feeling that far too much "spectatorism" goes on in this country at present. What we want to achieve is a great increase in the playing of games and a great decrease in the watching of games.
I am sometimes shocked to see thousands of young men on a Saturday afternoon, apparently in good health, wasting the afternoon in a kind of mass hysteria by watching other people doing what they ought to be doing themselves. [An HON. MEMBER: "They should be allowed to do what they like."] I quite agree that they should do what they like, but if we have to raise revenue in one way or another then the taxation of that activity is a perfectly legitimate way of doing it.
I say that because I think some speakers this evening have referred to the taxing of cricket, football or golf when what they really meant was the taxing of those who watch these sports. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) even expressed the hope that the game of cricket would be modified in accordance with the desires of the spectators. One frequently hears the same opinion expressed in relation to other sports.
For instance, even that highly amateur sport, cross-country running, I am sorry to say, now takes place round a closed circuit so that as many people as possible can watch it going on. In this way sports can be quite spoilt and turned into mere public spectacles. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will not yield to the rather emotional appeals which have been made to him upon that basis.
Cricket, I think, is in a different position, because it is not an entertainment at all. According to one's attitude towards it, it is either an inspiration or a soporific. Most people go to a cricket match not to watch the game, but to sleep in the sun. That is a delightful reason for going to a cricket match. It is part of the English way of life, and I hope it will not change. I trust that the people concerned will not take the bad advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford and try to wake up cricket to such an extent that, in the process, they wake up the spectators as well.
There is something peculiarly refreshing and restful about sleeping in the proximity of a cricket match, which puts it in a special position among sports. I cannot imagine anybody indulging in the same relaxation at an Association football cup final. I think, therefore, that my right hon. Friend is right in relieving the watching of cricket from Entertainments Duty, and for similar reasons I hope that he will not be persuaded to take it off other sports.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I shall not be so bold as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), who said that he knows the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It happens that we made the acquaintance of the right hon. Gentleman about the same time in 1935, but I would not be sure that I know him. The Committee have been talking about golf, tennis and other "classy" sports, but I want to talk about foot-running. At the 71st Morpeth Olympic Games last year there were foot-running, pole-jumping and the ancient Cumberland and Westmorland sport of wrestling.
I remember an occasion when an hon. Member spoke in this Chamber of opportunity, and used as an illustration the story of the Greek marathon runner who had a lot of hair close to his forehead

and none on the back of his head. If one wanted to take the opportunity one had to grasp that lock of hair because once the runner had passed there was no hair at the back of the head for one to grasp.
I am taking this opportunity to put a case to the Chancellor, not so much on behalf of the pole jumpers, the wrestlers and the runners, as on behalf of a very large body of men who keep sport alive and who make nothing out of it. They do not intend to make money, but year after year they hold games and contests from which large numbers of people derive enjoyment. They give their time and energy for no gainful purpose and they cannot understand why a duty which, last year, was 3d. on a 2s. 6d. ticket has been raised to 6½d. this year, an increase of over 100 per cent.
These people think of the 1937 Physical Training and Recreation Act, which was to provide facilities for the encouragement of physical training. At the Morpeth Olympic Games there were over 400 competitors from among men who train and make themselves fit not only to win sports events, but to make it possible for them to hew more coal. It also helps them to make a better contribution to the industrial output of the country. Hon. Members who have tried to run these sports know how precarious such affairs can be. If two successive meetings in two years are practically washed out the organisation has to be built up again. The amount which the Chancellor will get must be small. In view of the discouragement which this is giving to those who are keeping these sports alive, I ask the Chancellor to see whether he can assist this sport.

Mr. R. A. Butler: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to give some idea of how far the Government want to go tonight. I would make the following suggestion: that we should finish this debate and come to a conclusion. No doubt it will mean a Division. Then we shall reserve for tomorrow the discussion on football, which will allow hon. Members who are unable to speak tonight an opportunity to do so tomorrow. That will mean that it will not be necessary to ask the Committee to sit too late tonight. I have had the temerity to rise now to state the Govern-


ment's case, so that hon. Members will be in a position to see whether they can reach a decision on this main subject. I cannot bind anyone to this, but if hon. Members follow it I think it will be the best arrangement.
Several questions have been put to me. I desire, first, to deal with some of the points put by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) raised the question of bowls. I had understood that bowls was predominantly an amateur game, and, as such, would, according to my information, be for the most part excluded from tax. In the event of charges being made for a game of bowls organised commercially I could not help under this Finance Bill; but, in general, I was advised, and I am still advised, that it will escape. However, if the hon. Member cares to do so I shall be glad to discuss the matter with him.
Now I come to the question of golf, which was raised by the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas). We have already agreed that the English Amateur Championship and the Brabazon Trophy Matches are excluded. I do not think that the Open Championship will be excluded under Clause 5, to which the hon. Member referred, because it is not provided, to use the terms of the Bill, for the promotion and furtherance of amateur games and sports. In so far as professionals continue to be paid by their clubs, this particular function would not escape under Clause 5. I am willing to discuss with the hon. Member the extent to which golf will escape.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) dealt with tennis. This game has had a considerable escape under this Bill. In fact, it has escaped almost entirely, except for the particular professional bouts to which the hon. Member referred. I cannot exempt these under the terms of amateur exemptions; but apart from that a great part, including Wimbledon, is exempted. To that extent we have rendered tennis no longer the game of kings, but the game of the people.
Now I come to the very serious, and as usual, the attractive speech, of the hon. Member for Stoke, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). He was kind enough to refer to his long association, perhaps I may be

so bold as to call it friendship, with me; and I feel a sense of disappointment that he has lost confidence in me as a result of my decision about cricket. I take that as seriously as the hon. Member takes it, and perhaps I can now give the answer which I have been waiting to give to the Committee and the country.
11.0 p.m.
The hon. Member referred, in particular, to the debate last year, and I will take the speech from HANSARD as it is reported. He referred to columns 280 and 282 of the report of our debates on the Entertainments Duty last year, in which he quite rightly reminds us that I said:
I must warn the Committee that if we were in a hurry to make a differentiation for these sports and leave untouched others … we should get into trouble for that.
But the hon. Gentleman did not read further—and this is where I think my moral position, as I hope it always will be, remains intact—for in column 282 I went on to say:
The position of cricket seems to me to be quite different.
I went on to explain that attendances at first-class matches were falling—and here I took the advice last year of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton) and said that cricket must brighten itself up if it were to survive; and I say that again today—and I went on to say, as reported in column 282:
I want to say to the Committee that, in view of representations made to me about cricket, I undertake during this year and prior to the next Budget that we shall watch carefully the gates and the position of the cricket clubs on the old duty; and we shall have an opportunity to consider this before the next cricket season, if on close examination we find that the situation is really bad for the future of this great national game."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1952; Vol. 500. c. 280–282.]
It is in furtherance of the pledge which I gave to the Committee on 6th May last year that I have followed the position of the clubs most carefully and have made a close examination, and the conclusion of that examination is exactly the same conclusion as that of the hon. Member for Chelmsford—that if I were to continue to ask cricket to pay duty on the terms they were let off during last year, it would be bad for cricket and might even have a disastrous effect on cricket. I therefore came to the conclusion that it was unwise, in the interests of this


national game, to ask for the amount— and the exact amount is not £36,000, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) but £80,000—which would otherwise be taken from cricket.
I had anticipated that there would be a good deal of public opinion in favour of the course I was pursuing, and I was fortified in that by a Motion which was placed on the Order Paper in February this year by some hon. Members opposite —the hon. Members for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), for Newton (Mr. Lee), for Clayton (Mr. H. Thorneycroft), for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever), for Salford, East (Mr. Hardy), for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), for Bilston (Mr. Nally) and for Leigh (Mr. Boardman). The Motion read as follows:
That this House directs the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the precarious financial conditions of first-class cricket as a national institution in this country following several seasons in which Lancashire and other first-class counties have only balanced their accounts with difficulty, and to the great apprehension which exists that the projected increase in entertainment tax in the coming season may have disastrous results for the national game.
I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South will call it a day in his argument with me.

Mr. Ellis Smith: That is a fair point to make, but the Motion does not suggest discrimination.

Mr. Butler: I am not trying to catch the hon. Member on the horns of any dilemma, but simply to define my own decision, following last year's debate, to exempt cricket.
For a moment let us look back on the position last year. The Committee will remember that a great many hon. Members opposite made strong representations about cricket. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) in the same debate said:
The position in regard to cricket is very serious indeed.
Then we march on and find that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker) said:
Broadly speaking, the sport must pay its way. If, under this new tax, the Derbyshire County Cricket Club have to pay at least double what they were paying before—a sum which they simply could not find—I think it will probably push their heads under water.

The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—with particular knowledge of the Commonwealth:
I venture to say that this is a tax on Commonwealth intercourse, on Commonwealth good will and on Commonwealth enterprise in organising this kind of competitive friendly sport.
In my decision I am, therefore, simply following up the arguments put by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I also argued for the removal of the duty from all other sports.

Mr. Butler: I was not speaking on Clause 5, but it is evidently in order to make mention of it here. By my decision on amateur sport I have met a great many of the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman put before me both by letter and in debate in the House.
Now I come to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), who took a great part in our debates last year. She said:
The Chancellor will know that there are only 17 first-class county cricket clubs, and that last year Warwickshire did win the championship.
She then stated the amount of Entertainments Duty, and went on:
County cricket clubs are non-profit concerns They offer six hours of sunshine for 1s. 6d. when we have a good summer, and even if we go there and get wet as well the rain provides a sticky wicket and good entertainment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1952; Vol. 500, c. 207–256.]
She went on to appeal for a relief from the duty of cricket.
The fact is that all these arguments lead to the same conclusion, namely, that it would have been virtually impossible for me to levy a tax on cricket. According to the information I have received—and upon which I do not want to dilate to the Committee, because it would be revealing details which I ought not to reveal—if I had done so it would have been impossible for this national game and the clubs concerned to live. If I had forced this issue to a Division in last year's discussion I should not have been able to get a majority.
In this matter, therefore, I have been trying to act not only in the interests of cricket but according to the behests of the Committee as a whole. It has been


difficult, as it always is for anybody in a responsible position, to try to differentiate between one sport and another and therefore, having given this pledge last year about cricket and having exempted it from duty during the year, my first attempt was to exempt it by means of Clause 5, dealing with amateur entertainment. On examination I found that that would not work.
To begin with, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) is right —there are amateurs and professionals in other sports, and while there is a special position with regard to the amateur in cricket, and one could make a case about it—I have been provided with such a case—I do not think it stands up intellectually, and I should have got into trouble if I had based my decision on those grounds. The right hon. Gentleman has already perceived that that is an intellectual non-starter.
I could not have reversed the decision I made last year not to subject cricket to tax, and I therefore came to the conclusion that as it could not be covered by the amateur definition alone, my only course was to exempt it altogether. I came to that decision for very much the same reason as that given by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). The Committee should also realise that cricket is in some respects different from some of the other sports which we shall be discussing tomorrow, namely, football, or even boxing. Cricket has to be played over a long period, and is subject to the vagaries of the weather. For example, on 16th May there was no play at Lords because of adverse weather. At the Oval the match between Surrey and Warwickshire took a spectacular turn. A three-day match was over in one day.
Although it has been very difficult to take a decision to differentiate one sport from another, I think that if the Committee will look at the picture as a whole, and see the picture of amateur sport, and the differentiation which I have achieved in the Bill, and the exemption of cricket, it will find I have not been unfair. It will find that I had no other

decision to take in the light of the information which came before me.
We shall discuss the particular case of football tomorrow. By the concession to cricket I shall lose only £80,000. If I accepted the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment I should lose between £1½ million and £2 million. I am afraid that I cannot spare that money. Therefore, I cannot accept the Amendment. I must ask the Committee to come to a decision on this issue, as soon as possible so as not to make us sit too late tonight. The issue is that we accept the solution I have put forward in the Bill for the relief of sport to a certain extent in this year's enterprise.
I do not think that hon. Gentlemen will feel their consciences are unduly affected when they look at the tradition and history of cricket, and at all that it means to the Commonwealth as well as to our own country; when they consider that many working people are unable to go to cricket as often as it is played owing to the fact that a match is spread over such a long time; and when they reflect that I honestly believe that the exemption could not be fitted in in any other way and that, in following the undertaking I gave last year to the Committee, I am taking the only course I could adopt.

Mr. Gaitskell: I think the Chancellor's suggestions on procedure are reasonable, that we should come to a decision on this Amendment tonight and defer starting on the football and boxing Amendments until tomorrow. But we cannot accept the substance of his reply. The greater part of what he said was a defence of the exemption of cricket. We are not challenging that for one moment. We have made that plain again and again. What we are challenging is the failure to give the same treatment, and very deserved treatment, to other sports as well. In view of the Chancellor's refusal to do that I suggest that we should now divide.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 256.

Division No. 176.]
AYES
[9.15 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Dodds, N. N.


Adams, Richard
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Donnelly, D. L.


Albu, A. H.
Burke, W. A.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Burton, Miss F. E.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Callaghan, L. J.
Edelman, M.


Awbery, S. S.
Carmichael, J.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Baird, J.
Champion, A. J.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Balfour, A.
Chapman, W. D.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Bartley, P.
Clunie, J.
Evans. Stanley (Wednesbury)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Coldrick, W.
Fernyhough, E.


Bence, C. R.
Collick, P. H.
Fienburgh, W.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Cove, W. G.
Finch, H. J.


Benson, G.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Beswick, F.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Follick, M.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Crossman, R. H. S.
Foot, M. M.


Bing, G. H. C.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Forman, J. C.


Blackburn, F.
Daines, P.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Blenkinsop, A.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Freeman, John (Watford)


Blyton, W. R.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Boardman, H.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Bowden, H. W.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gibson, C. W.


Bowen, E. R.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Glanville, James


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Gooch, E. G.


Brockway, A. F.
Deer, G.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Brock, Dryden (Halifax)
Delargy, H. J.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)




Greenwood, Rt Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Grey, C. F.
Mann, Mrs. Jear
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Manuel, A. C.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Skeffington, Arthur


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mason, Roy
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Crimond, J.
Mayhow, C. P.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mellish, R. J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Messer, F.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Hamilton, W. W.
Mikardo, Ian
Snow, J. W.


Hannan, W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hargreaves, A.
Monslow, W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Moody, A. S.
Sparks, J. A.


Hastings, S.
Morley, R.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hayman, F. H.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Mort, D. L.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Harbison, Miss M.
Moyle, A.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mulley, F. W
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hobson, C. R.
Murray, J. D.
Swingler, S. T.


Holman, P.
Nally, W.
Sylvester, G. O.


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Houghton, Douglas
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hoy, J. H.
Oldfield, W. H.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Oliver, G. H
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orbach, M.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oswald, T.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Padley, W. E.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paget, R. T.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paling, Rt Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Thornton, E.


Irving W. J. (Wood Green)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Timmons, J.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pannell, Charles
Tomney, F.


Janner, B.
Pargiter, G. A.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Parker, J.
Usborne, H. C.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Paton, J.
Viant, S. P.


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Peart, T. F.
Wade, D. W.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wallace, H. W.


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Popplewell, E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Porter, G.
Weitzman, D.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Keenan, W.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Kenyon, C.
Prootor, W. T.
West, D. G.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pryde, D. J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


King, Dr. H. M.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Kinley, J.
Rankin, John
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Reeves, J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wigg, George


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Lewis, Arthur
Rhodes, H.
Wilkins, W. A.


Lindgren, G. S.
Richards, R.
Willey, F. T.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Williams, David (Neath)


Logan, D. G.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


MacColl, J. E.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


McGhee, H. G.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


McGovern, J.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


McInnes, J.
Ross, William
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Royle, C.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


McLeavy, F.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wyatt, W. L.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Yates, V. F.


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.



MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Short, E. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Butcher, Sir Herbert


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)


Alport, C. J. M.
Bennett, William (Woodside)
Campbell, Sir David


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Carr, Robert


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Birch, Nigel
Cary, Sir Robert


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Bishop, F. P.
Channon, H.


Arbuthnot, John
Black, C. W.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Boothby, R. J. G.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bossom, A. C.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Cole, Norman


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Colegate, W. A.


Baldwin, A. E.
Braine, B. R.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.


Banks, Col. C.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Barber, Anthony
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Barlow, Sir John
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Cranborne, Viscount


Baxter, A. B.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Bullard, D. G.
Crouch, R. F.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Burden, F. F. A.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)







Davidson, Viscountess
Leather, E. H. C.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Deedes, W. F.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Renton, D. L. M.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Robertson, Sir David


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Linstead, H. N.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Donner, P. W.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Robson Brown, W.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Roper, Sir Harold


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Longden, Gilbert
Russell, R. S.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Low, A. R. W.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Finlay, Graeme
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Fisher, Nigel
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
McAdden, S. J.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Ford, Mrs. Patricia
McCallum, Major D.
Scott, R. Donald


Fort, R.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Shepherd, William


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
McKibbin, A. J.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Gammans, L. D.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Snadden, W. McN.


Glyn, Sir Ralph
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Spearman. A. C. M.


Godber, J. B.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Speir, R. M.


Gough, C. F. H.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Gower, H. R.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Stevens, G. P.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Markham, Major S. F.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Marples, A. E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Storey, S.


Harden, J. R. E.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maude, Angus
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maudling, R.
Studholme, H. G.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Summers, G. S.


Harrison Col. J. H. (Eye)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Sutclifte, Sir Harold


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Meller, Sir John
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Teeling, W.


Hay, John
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Heald, Sir Lionel
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Heath, Edward
Nicholls, Harmar
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Thornton Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Tilney, John


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Hirst, Geoffrey
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Turner, H. F. L.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Turton, R. H.


Hollis, M. C.
Nutting, Anthony
Vane, W. M. F.


Hope, Lord John
Oakshott, H. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Odey, G. W.
Vosper, D. F.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Horobin, I. M.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Osborne, C.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Partridge, E.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Watkinson, H. A.


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Hurd, A. R.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Wellwood, W.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Jennings, R.
Pitman, I. J.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Powell, J. Enoch
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wills, G.


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Profumo, J. D.
Wood, Hon. R.


Keeling, Sir Edward
Raikes, Sir Victor



Kerr, H. W.
Rayner, Brig. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lambert, Hon. G.
Redmayne, M.
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Kaberry


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Rees-Davies, W. R.



Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 177.]
AYES
[11.15 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
George, Rt. Han. Maj. C. Lloyd
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Alport, C. J. M.
Godber, J. B.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Gough, C. F. H.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Gower, H. R.
Nicholls, Harmar


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Arbuthnot, John
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Grimond, J.
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nutting, Anthony


Baldwin, A. E.
Harden, J. R. E.
Oakshott, H. D.


Banks, Col. C.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Odey, G. W.


Barber, Anthony
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Barlow, Sir John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Baxter, A. B.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hay, John
Osborne, C.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Partridge, E.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Heald, Sir Lionel
Perkins, W. R. D.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Heath, Edward
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Birch, Nigel
Higgs, J. M. C.
Payton, J. W. W.


Bishop, F. P.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Black, C. W.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pitman, I. J.


Bossom, A. C.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Powell, J. Enoch


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hollis, M. C.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hope, Lord John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Braine, B. R.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Profumo, J. D.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Horobin, I. M.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Redmayne, M.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Renton, D. L. M.


Bullard, D. G.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Robertson, Sir David


Burden, F. F. A.
Hurd, A. R.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hutchison, Lt-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W)
Robson-Brown, W.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Campbell, Sir David
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Roper, Sir Harold


Carr, Robert
Jennings, R.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Russell, R. S.


Channon, H.
Johnson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Keeling, Sir Edward
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Kerr, H. W.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Cole, Norman
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Scott, Rt. Donald


Colegate, W. A.
Leather, E. H. C.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Shepherd, William


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Linstead, H. N.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Snaddon, W. McN.


Crouch, R. F.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Spearman, A. C. M


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Speir, R. M.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Longden, Gilbert
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Davidson, Viscountess
Low, A. R. W.
Stevens, G. P


Deedes, W. F.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Storey, S.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
McCallum, Major D.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Donner, P. W.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Doughty, C. J. A.
McKibbin, A. J.
Studholme, H. G.


Drayson, G. B.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Summers, G. S.


Drewe, C.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
MacLeod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Teeling, W.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Erroll, F. J.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Finlay, Graeme
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Fisher, Nigel
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Thornton Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Markham, Major S. F.
Tilney, John


Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Fort, R.
Marples, A. E.
Turner, H. F. L.


Foster, John
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Turton, R. H.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Vane, W. M. F.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Maude, Angus
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Maudling, R.
Vosper, D. F.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Gammans, L. D.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Mellor, Sir John
Walker-Smith, D. C.







Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Williams, Gerald (Tenbridge)
Wood, Hon R.


Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
York, C.


Watkinson, H. A.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)



Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wellwood, W.
Wills, G.
Major Conant and Mr. Kaberry.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Glanville, James
Moyle, A.


Adams, Richard
Gooch, E. G.
Mulley, F. W.


Albu, A. H.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Murray, J. D.


Alton, Arthur (Bosworth)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Nally, W.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Awbery, S. S.
Grey, C. F.
Oldfield, W. H.


Baton, Miss Alice
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oliver, G. H.


Baird, J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Orbach, M.


Balfour, A.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Oswald, T.


Barnet, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Padley, W. E.


Bartley, P.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Paget, R. T.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hamilton, W. W.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Bence, C. R.
Hannan, W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Bonn, Hon. Wedgwood
Hargreaves, A.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Beswick, F.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Pannell, Charles


Sevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hastings, S.
Pargiter, G. A.


Bins, G. H. C.
Hayman, F. H.
Parker, J.


Blackburn, F.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Paton, J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Pearson, A.


Bryton, W. R.
Herbison, Miss M.
Peart, T. F.


Boardman, H.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bowden, H. W.
Hobson, C. R.
Popplewell, E.


Bowen, E. R.
Holman, P.
Porter, G.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Houghton, Douglas
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Brockway, A. F.
Hoy, J. H.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Proctor, W. T.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pryde, D. J.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Burke, W. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rankin, John


Burton, Hiss F. E.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Callaghan, L. J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rhodes, H.


Carmichael, J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Richards, R.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Janner, B.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Champion, A. J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Clunie, J.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Parcras, N.)


Coldrick, W.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Collick, P. H.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Ross, William


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Shaekleton, E. A. A.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Short, E. W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Keenan, W.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
King, Dr. H. M.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Skeffington, Arthur


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, Mrs. (Stoke, N.)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lewis, Arthur
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Deer, G.
Lindgren, G. S.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Delargy, H. J.
Logan, D. G.
Snow, J. W.


Dodds, N. N.
MAcColl, J. E.
Sorensen, R. W.


Donnelly. D. L.
McGhee, H. G.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Driberg, T. E. N.
McGovern, J.
Sparks, J. A.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Mclnnes, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McLeavy, F.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Edelman, M.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Swingler, S. T.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Sylvester, G. O.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fernyhough, E.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Fienburgh, W.
Mason, Roy
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Finch, H. J.
Mayhew, C. P.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mellish, R. J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Follick, M.
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Iorworth (Rhondda, W.)


Foot, M. M.
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Forman, J. C.
Monslow, W.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moody, A. S.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Freeman, John (Watford)
Morley, R.
Thornton, E.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Morris, Peroy (Swansea, W.)
Timmons, J.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Tomney, F.


Gibson, C. W.
Mort, D. L.
Usborne, H. C.







Wade, D. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Wallace, H. W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Watkins, T. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Wigg, George
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Weitzman, D.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Wilkins, W. A.
Wyatt, W. L.


Wells, William (Walsall)
Willey, F. T.
Yates, V. F.


West, D. G.
Williams, David (Neath)



Wheeldon, W. E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Royle and Mr. Horace Holmes.

To report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—[Sir H. Butcher.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 5.—(WHITE FISH SUBSIDY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 2, after "Kingdom," insert:
or in respect of white fish so landed and of voyages so made.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Nugent.]

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would be so kind as to tell the House what the Amendment does? I have followed this Bill since its introduction and have studied the Lords Amendments and read them against the draft of the Bill. I think I know what this Lords Amendment seeks to do, but I think the hon. Gentleman should tell the House what the Government have in mind.
Will the hon. Gentleman explain this? I make an assumption from my reading of the Amendment that the Government wish to be able to adjust the white fish subsidy as given to middle water trawlers to include a subsidy by reason of the weight of fish caught as is the case in the inshore fishing industry. At present the subsidy given to the middle water industry is based upon the income of the vessel. If the income falls below a certain level a subsidy is given to make up the income of the vessel fishing at sea. In the case of the inshore industry, the subsidy is given per stone of fish landed. I understand that the purpose of the

Amendment is to enable the Government to modify one or other scheme and to enable them to introduce part of the principle applied to the alternative scheme, but I think the House are entitled to know why the Amendment is introduced and what it is all about.

Further, is it intended when this adjustment has been made that the next scheme will be different from the schemes in operation? I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will answer those points.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has correctly interpreted the meaning of the Amendment. It was because I anticipated that he and his hon. Friends would correctly interpret the meaning of the Amendment that I moved the Motion formally. The effect of the Amendment is purely drafting. It is in order to clarify possible obscurity in Clause 5 of the Bill and to make sure that the Bill when it becomes a statute enables my right hon. Friend to use either method in a scheme—either the insurance method which gives a financial subsidy on the voyage, which we have been accustomed to in the past on the near and middle water vessels, or on the weight of the fish caught, which has been the practice in the past with the inshore vessels.
In future we may use either one or other method in any scheme, whichever seems most appropriate. It would be inappropriate to anticipate what will be in the scheme to be brought before the House next month, but the hon. Member for Hamilton will have an opportunity then to see what the proposition is and certainly one of them will incorporate both these features.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Remaining Lords Amendment agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Orders of the Day — PROBATE SUB-REGISTRY, CANTERBURY

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): I beg to move,
That the Draft Principal Probate Registry (Non-Contentious Business) (Canterbury Sub-Registry) Order, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th April, be approved.
This Order has already been scrutinised and passed by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, and a Resolution approving it was passed in another place last week. I do not think I should trouble the House with the technicalities beyond saying that under the provisions of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1925, there was established a system of probate registries. During the war the Canterbury Sub-Registry was closed down owing to enemy air attacks and for other wartime reasons, and it is now considered that it would be to the public benefit that it should be re-opened. Therefore I ask the House to agree to this Order.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS ACCOMMODATION, &c.

Select Committee appointed to inquire into and report upon—

(a) the arrangements made in regard to the allocation of accommodation in this House, the authorities by whom that accommodation is allocated, and the use at present made thereof;
(b) the amenities necessary to enable Members to carry out efficiently the services required of them;
(c) the desirability of appointing a Sessional Committee to review and report from time to time on the findings and recommendations which may be made by the Select Committee; and
(d) the methods of appointment of the staff at all levels in the employment of this House:

Mr. Bing, Mr. Henry Brooke, Mr. Daines, Viscountess Davidson, Mr. Grimond, Sir Edward Keeling, Miss Jennie Lee, Mr. McCorquodale, Mr. McLeavy, Mr. Niall Macpherson, Mr. Charles Pannell, Mr. Henry Price, Mr. Stokes and Sir Herbert Williams:

Power to send for persons, papers and records:

Five to be the Quorum.—[Sir Herbert Butcher.]

Orders of the Day — UNADOPTED ROADS, POOLE

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Sir Herbert Butcher.]

11.33 p.m

Captain Richard Pilkington: I apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary for keeping him at this late hour, but I have waited a long time for this opportunity to raise a matter which is of very great concern to a large number of my constituents. The problem I wish to put to him is the astonishing number of astonishingly bad unadopted roads which there is in the borough and constituency of Poole. This state of affairs is the more unfortunate because in every other respect, in the way of amenities and general beauty, Poole is extremely well off. The corporation are, of course, ready and willing to remove this blemish from the borough as quickly as they can. They are very sympathetic with the indignant feeling of the ratepayers and inhabitants of Poole that this state of affairs of very bad roads has gone on for so long, but they of course require the sanction of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government before they can do anything, and I fully appreciate that the Minister also requires the sanction of the Treasury before he can do anything.
I propose now to make a few quotations from some of the representations which have been put to me which will, I think, illustrate in a vivid way the great difficulty with which people living in these roads are confronted at the present time. In all these cases I have already had some contact either with the Minister himself or with the local authorities to see whether anything could be done. I propose this evening to give a cumulative picture of the whole, and I hope when I have done that the seriousness of the situation will persuade my hon. Friend to take the action which all who live in this area very much wish him to take.
The first example I wish to put to the Minister is that of Runton Road, in respect of which a petition was signed by 98 per cent. of its inhabitants last year. They pointed out that this road had been built on a very steep slope and that whenever the weather is bad the unmade surface washes down, chokes the drains and on one occasion a little over a year


ago contributed very materially to a most serious flooding which occurred in a road slightly lower than the one of which I am speaking and where the water in the houses was actually waist deep. However, that is another story.
One of the letters I have received comes from a gentleman living in this road. He writes as follows:
The state of this road is positively shocking. At night certain sections are most dangerous to cars and pedestrians.
He gives chapter and verse for what he says.
The second instance is that of a group of roads—Twemlow Avenue, Orchard Avenue, Island Road and Copse Close. During the last 25 years this road has on two occasions been repaired by the residents at their own expense. But the road has deteriorated, and conditions have got bad again. Its present state is really very bad indeed. I have been given a list of accidents which have occurred on this road owing to its bad surface. These accidents include numerous cuts on the body, three sprained ankles, one fractured ankle and in one case a fall which necessitated five stitches in the individual's head. In another case an arm was broken in two places.
I have had two letters from people living in this road. One is from a lady who gives me the list of accidents from which I have quoted. She quotes 14 in all and adds:
No doubt inquiries would bring other accidents to light, especially among the very young and the elderly.
Perhaps here I should make the point that a large number of retired and elderly people live in the neighbourhood, and for that reason it is all the more regrettable that these roads are so bad. The second letter from the same area describes in some detail the shocking state in which this road is at present and adds that it has been like this for over 20 years.
The next road is called Connaught Crescent. A letter from one of the people living in it refers to the large holes and blocked drains, and says that
cars and cycles drive on the side-walk to avoid the surface.
That gives one some idea of how very bad it is. The same correspondent comments with some justification on the irony of the cry "Make the Roads Safe." I was

invited to drive over this road and to see for myself what it was like. When I saw it I preferred to get out and walk. There is another road, called Cuckoo Road. Its surface is so bad that a seven months' old baby was tipped out of its pram and only escaped serious injury by the mercy of Providence.
Of another road, Spur Road, a correspondent writes to me:
I fell and broke my arm and the doctor said it would never be the same again. I have had to have a part of the bone removed. This road is really dangerous. I have heard of several people who have fallen in it. One lady has a permanent injury and cannot straighten her arm. I suppose someone will have to be killed before anything is done. On behalf of all I write to say that if something is not done there are elderly people round this district to whom accidents might be fatal.
Stanfield Road is described in another letter as consisting of stagnant pools, with flooding in wet weather and clouds of dust when dry. Many of these cases, I may say, have been taken up by local associations who have done what they could. In particular Oakdale Ratepayers' Association have made a very strong case for roads in their area. In a letter to me they mention especially Brampton Road, which has no lighting and where accidents and burglaries have occurred. Churchill Crescent is described as dangerous with no lighting. I suggest that when a crescent has that illustrious name something ought to be done to improve its condition.
Finally, I have a letter describing Pearsons Avenue as in:
…an abominable condition reminiscent of the shell holes in the Ypres sector of the 1914–18 war … Householders place their garden garbage in the holes, which makes it ten times worse when it rains. … Kerbs and channelling have almost disappeared and it is difficult to know where the pavement ends and the road begins. Consequently the traffic uses both. Each winter conditions get worse. In the summer the dust is as intolerable as the winter mud.
I have put forward actual instances of roads and the experiences of those who live on them. I hope that I have said enough to show the seriousness of the position, and I ask the Minister that something really effective be done. I know that the times are hard and have been hard. In the first six years after the war only two miles of roads were repaired. That represented some 20 different streets or roads. But there


remain, in the condition which I have described, no less than 50 miles of these bad roads, or 270 individual streets. Of this total, some 96 streets, or 16 miles, have been grouped together and are scheduled for action as soon as it can be taken and the Ministry concerned has given permission.
No doubt it will be said that the economic position of this country is still in a parlous state, although it is improving, and that no unnecessary expenditure must be incurred. No doubt it will be said also that the difficulty of capital expenditure at the present time is very great indeed. It may also be said that there is great difficulty in carrying out work of this kind in any one area. My constituents realise all this, but I submit that the conditions which I have described, the damage to life and limb which has occurred and which will presumably go on occurring, the damage to vehicles, the waste of petrol; the loss of time, the strain on the temper of the individual are all powerful arguments for action now, and that is what I am asking for—action, and action now.

11.46 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Poole (Captain Pilkington) opened his remarks with the observation that Poole is well off for amenities. It is also well represented in this House. The hon. and gallant Member has put forward the case for his constituents in a reasonable manner, lucidly and persuasively. Charles Dickens once spoke of a judicious and impartial arrangement of difficulties. Therefore I am glad to say that there has been an absence of the asperities which may have accompanied the Finance Bill discussion in regard to sport.
The hon. and gallant Member mentioned several problems of which I took careful note. He mentioned Runton Road, 98 per cent. of the inhabitants of which had sent letters to him. He said that the road was on a slope, and that there were therefore technical difficulties. He mentioned Churchill Crescent. Although the crescent itself may be in danger, I would have thought that the

name and the position were safe. He mentioned Tremlow Avenue and Island Close. I do not think he is quite right in saying that the accidents which have occurred have been necessarily due to the bad roads. The hon. and gallant Gentleman talked about ankles being sprained. I sprained my ankle on a perfectly simple skiing slope, and I did not feel that I could write to the local authority and say that the slope ought to be made safer. The mishap was largely caused because I was not capable of negotiating the slope.
I was also told that cyclists have to go on to the sidewalks to avoid the bad surfaces. When I go to France as a cyclist, in Lyons, Orleans, Tours, and even in Paris, I have to go on to the sidewalks to avoid the roads because they are not safe for cyclists. Wherever one goes, whether to Canada or America, one will rind that one cannot make the roads and the whole of the natural amenities so safe that pedestrians and even cyclists cannot find themselves in danger. Before a highway authority will adopt a road—that is, become responsible for its upkeep—it requires that road to be made up to its specification at the expense of the persons who own the frontages. The making up is usually carried out by the local authorities, often many years after houses have been built along both sides of the road.
The war, and other necessary work after the war, meant many delays over making up private streets. Even before the war there were many unmade roads. During the war nothing could be done to them. Since the war successive Governments, including this one, have concentrated building and civil engineering resources on more urgent work, such as housing, schools, defence, industry, sewers and water supplies. The result is that the backlog of unmade streets which was the residue of the pre-war years has not been attended to.
After at least 30 years, possibly 40 years, in an unmade state they must be pretty bad; but I would ask the hon. and gallant Member, if resources are to be concentrated on the roads he has described, what other work are we to leave undone? Are we to do without schools or houses or factories? It comes down to a question of priorities. I say this, with the hon. Members opposite thronging those benches, and I say it with


the modesty associated with all politicians: this Government have built far more houses than were built by the previous Government, more industrial buildings and more schools. The Chancellor has announced that licences will be available freely to productive industries. The defence effort in building is greater than it was formerly and the total demand on the building and civil engineering industry is greater today than in the last five or six years.
Therefore, if we are to elevate the repair of unmade roads to the topmost priority, what are we to relegate? That is the question which my hon. and gallant Friend must answer. I assure him that it is still necessary to establish priorities in the categories of work to be allowed. It is not a question of an insensitive bureaucracy prohibiting the repair of these streets but of a judicious allocation of the resources available.
The Minister is aware that many private streets are in a bad condition. He knows that many local authorities would like to do a lot more work on them than he can authorise. But if he authorises work on these streets it can only be at the expense of the priorities I have mentioned, such as schools, houses and industrial buildings.
It is realised that there is a large backlog. We are glad that my hon. Friend has prodded the Ministry, for all Ministries, even the efficient Ministry run by my right hon. Friend, requires to be prodded from time to time, but I can assure him that we move with a reasonable celerity in these matters. My right hon. Friend hopes to authorise more work this year than last year for the making of private streets so that in this narrow sector there is an advance, and he will try to authorise the expenditure wherever the case is urgent, but let us try to look at the problem in perspective. It is not one which is getting worse every year because of the post-war housing programme. Many people think the problem of unmade streets is getting worse, but that is not so.
The best time to make up streets is when the houses are being built and the builders are on the spot, not after the houses have been built. It is a waste of materials and manpower to endeavour to make up a street after the houses

have been built. Both local authorities and private builders are allowed to make up the roads when they are building the houses which this Government are having built, so that the evil which my hon. Friend seeks to remedy is not being perpetuated by the present system of building. It is a backlog but it is not being perpetuated in the building being carried out. A few builders do not make up the roads when they build the houses but they are greatly outnumbered by those being made in the same period.
The position in the country as a whole is being carefully watched by my right hon. Friend. We are aware of the arrears of work to be done to make the private roads both safe and agreeable to the inhabitants. We are not insensitive on the matter and we are making sure that in the building being done now the same evil is not being continued.
The question is, how soon can we overtake the arrears of work which have to be done? The problem with regard to the country as a whole is difficult, but it is not grave and not really serious. At the same time, we must not minimise it. As far as the narrow issue of the Poole Borough Council is concerned—the local authority which my hon. and gallant Friend represents so assiduously and so effectively—there have been no protests. They have approached the Ministry this year about two streets, which will cost £16,000 to make up, and in each case a favourable reply has been given. Every request which has been made from that local authority has been met in full, but I cannot say that I could guarantee that my right hon. Friend can do any more because, on present standards, £16,000 is by no means ungenerous.
I am sure the House will be grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for raising this subject, but I must point out that I have been in many countries and I do not know of any where the roads leading to the houses are of the high standards that we have here. In Canada, for example, quite expensive houses have roads which are far worse than any I have seen here, and the same applies to the United States of America, though both are richer countries than this.
I do not think we need to be ashamed of the state of our roads. At the same time there is no reason why we should


be satisfied, and I hope that with the assistance of my right hon. Friend, the continuance of this Government and the repetition of the result which we had at Sunderland, we shall be able to do more good work in the next three years than has been done in the last nine. With those few observations I hope my hon.

and gallant Friend will repair to his constituency and assure his constituents that the problem of private streets has been well looked after.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.